ISLAMABAD - The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Wednesday reserved its verdict in Senator Yousaf Raza Gilani’s intra-court appeal (ICA), challenging the rejections of seven votes in the Senate chairman’s elections.

A division bench of the IHC comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri conducted hearing of the ICA, filed by Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader and Senator Yousaf Raza 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 Senate chairman. 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 Senate Chairman 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.

Senate Chairman’s counsel pleads parliamentary proceedings cannot be challenged under Article 67 of Constitution

He argued that the Senate chairman elections were held under 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. 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 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 to 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.

Gilani contended, “The learned judge erred in failing to appreciate that the presiding officer at that particular time was not conducting the proceedings in the House, he was a nominated officer of the president for the sole purpose of conducting the election to the office of Senate chairman.”

He argued, “The proceedings of the house envisaged in the Constitution are proceedings comprising of legislative and deliberative functions of either houses of Majlis-e-Shoora (Senate and National Assembly) and not to executive functions which the presiding officer at that time was performing.”

Earlier, 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.