CPs.2693-2694 of 2018 3 credentials. The present case does not involve a fake or bogus degree therefore none of the said precedents apply. In two of the above-cited cases, namely, Muhammad Rizwan Gill and Abdul Ghafoor Lehri, documentary and oral evidence was recorded to arrive at the adverse finding against the returned candidate. No evidence was recorded in the instant case to sustain the finding against the petitioner. Therefore, the rule laid down in the judgments relied does not apply here. Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution requires that the disqualification of an election candidate must be founded on a declaration by a Court of law that such person is “not honest.” Any judicial declaration must necessarily be based on evidence, oral or documentary. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Appellate Tribunal and the impugned judgment by the learned Division Bench of the High Court do not refer to any positive evidence on the record to establish either that the Sanad of Shahad-ul-Aalmia claimed by the petitioner in his nomination papers in 2008 is bogus, forged or fake or that the petitioner referred to the same knowingly and deliberately as being equivalent to a graduate or postgraduate degree. The issue that the Sanad of Shahad-ulAalmia held by the petitioner was not equivalent to a graduate or postgraduate degree has been decided affirmatively by the learned Appellate Tribunal and the learned High Court solely on the basis that such fact is undisputed by the petitioner. That omission does not constitute an admission in order to have evidentiary value. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that an admission should be unambiguous, unqualified and specific. [Ref: Amir Bibi vs. Muhammad Khurshid (2003 SCMR 1261) and Macdonald Layton & Co. Pak Ltd. vs. Uzin Export Import Foreign Trade Co. (1996 SCMR 696)]. Reference in this regard is also made to Muhammad Siddique