ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), on Wednesday, reserved its verdict in Senator Yousaf Raza Gilani’s Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) challenging the rejections of seven votes in the chairman Senate elections.
A division bench, comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri heard the ICA filed by Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) leader and Senator Gilani against the IHC single bench’s decision, wherein, it had turned down the PPP leader’s petition challenging the result of the elections for the chairman Senate.
A single bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Athar Minallah had rejected his petition by declaring the same non-maintainable after hearing the arguments.
The bench reserved the verdict after hearing the arguments of all the parties of the case.
In this matter, Barrister Ali Zafar, the counsel for Chairman Senate Sadiq Sanjrani adopted that parliamentary proceedings could not be challenged under Article 67 and even no court was authorised to raise question against any decision of the house.
He argued that the Senate chairman elections were held under the Senate Rules of Business 2012, and the house could choose one of its members as chairman.
He added that elections, nominations, rejection of votes, and election of chairman and deputy chairman were all part of the senate business.
The counsel contended that the first session of the house was used to be held under chair of a presiding officer nominated by the president and he was responsible to complete the process of chairman senate’s election.
He added that if the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) held any elections it could be challenged in courts but the senate elections like House of Commons was an internal matter of the house.
Barrister Ali Zafar further contended that chairman, deputy chairman senate, speaker and deputy speaker of the assemblies could only be removed through a no-confidence move in the house.
He said that petitioner Yousaf Raza Gilani had become leader of the opposition with the signature of Chairman Senate Sadiq Sanjrani.
In the appeal filed by Gilani, his counsel Farooq H Naek prayed before the court that the single bench of IHC did not take into account complete facts during the proceedings of the case.
He added that illegal activities can be interpreted by the courts, whereas, it was the job of the court to provide compensation for illegality and in such cases the court has to check the intention of the voter.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2021