ISLAMABAD - Attorney General for Pakistan Khalid Javed on Wednesday concluded his arguments before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) in Senator Yousaf Raza Gilani’s intra court appeal (ICA) challenging the rejections of seven votes in the Senate Chairman election. 

A division bench of the IHC comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri conducted hearing of the ICA filed by Pakistan PPP Senator Yousaf Raza Gillani against the IHC decision wherein it had already turned down the PPP leader’s petition challenging the result of the elections for the Chairman Senate. 

Attorney General Khalid Javed in his arguments gave references of various court judgements from Pakistan and outside and contended that the Parliament’s proceedings could not be challenged at any forum under Article 69 of the constitution. 

After his arguments, an assistant lawyer of Farooq H Naek Advocate asked that the AG was representing the federation or the PTI.  Justice Aamer said that Attorney General was not representing any party and if he was not agreed with the arguments, then he should oppose them on constitutional grounds.  

Later, the IHC bench deferred the hearing of the case till July 09 for further proceedings. 

Gilani’s lawyer Farooq H Naek, in his arguments, had also mentioned judgements of the courts of Bangladesh and London besides the Supreme Court of Pakistan and submitted their copies in the court. 

He adopted before the court that presiding officer’s decision in Senate elections could be challenged in court because the President of Pakistan had appointed Muzafar Hussain Shah to preside only first session of the Senate polls. 

He said that only the Chairman Senate was authorised to give ruling in the Upper House instead of presiding officer. The counsel argued that the single member bench had rejected their case on the ground that the matter was related to parliamentary proceedings and it was an internal subject of the Upper House of the Parliament. 

Naek said the parliamentary proceedings had immunity under Article 69 of the Constitution but how it could be called a procedure when a particular voting method had not been mentioned in the rules. Gillani’s counsel contended that the presiding officer belonged to the PPP’s opponent party and rejection of seven votes by him was unlawful. 

In the appeal filed by Gillani, his counsel Farooq H Naek prayed to the court that the single bench of IHC did not take into account complete facts during the proceedings of the case. 

He said that illegal activities could 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.