ISLAMABAD - The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Wednesday served notices to respondents on an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) of Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Senator Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani challenging rejection of his seven votes in Senate chairman elections.
A division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri heard the ICA against the decision of single member bench.
Gilani’s lawyer Farook H Naek appeared before the court and adopted the stance that single member bench had dismissed their case on two grounds.
He argued that the elections were held under Article 60 and Senate used to prepare rules under Article 67 of the Constitution.
He contended the court that rules and procedures were prepared by the then Senate in 2012, which were silent about the procedure regarding elections of Senate chairman.
He said there was no procedure and method specified in the rules for Senate chairman polls.
He further said they met Senate secretary before the elections who briefed them about the method of casting votes. The seven votes of Yousaf Raza Gilani were rejected by presiding officer on the charge of wrong stamping.
Naek said they were not challenging the proceedings of the Senate instead they were challenging the decision of rejection of seven votes.
To a query by the bench, Farooq H Naek said there was no alternate forum for them to challenge the election results as it were not held under election act.
He also produced the copy of a Sindh High Court’s verdict in another case as a reference.
If they would bring a move for vote of no confidence in Senate, it meant they had admitted the elections results, he argued. After listening argument, the bench admitted the appeal for hearing and served notices to respondents for April 27. The petitioner had named Senate Chairman Sadiq Sanjrani, law and parliamentary affairs secretaries, presiding officer and others as respondents in the case.
It may be mentioned here that earlier, a single member bench comprising Chief Justice Athar Minallah had dismissed the same case while declaring it as non maintainable.
The court said judiciary could not interfere into the proceedings of the parliament under the law.