ISLAMABAD - Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday deferred hearing 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 People’s Party (PPP) leader and Senator Yousaf Raza Gillani against the IHC decision wherein it had turned down the PPP leader’s petition challenging the result of the elections for the Chairman Senate.
The court adjourned the hearing without further proceedings and fixed August 5 as the next date of hearing.
Previously, Attorney General Khalid Javed concluded his arguments and gave references of various court judgements from Pakistan and outside in his arguments and contended that the Parliament’s proceedings could not be challenged at any forum under Article 69 of the Constitution. Gilani’s lawyer Farooq H Naek, in his arguments, also mentioned judgements of the courts of Bangladesh and London besides the Supreme Court of Pakistan and submitted their copies in the court.
Court adjourns hearing without further proceedings; August 5 fixed as next date
He said 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 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 is related to parliamentary proceedings and that it was an internal subject of the Upper House of Parliament.
He continued that the decision also stated that there was an alternative forum for the petitioner but without pointing out the same. He said that his client was a candidate for the post of Senate Chairman and claimed that the Secretary Senate briefed the senators that a stamp in the box on ballot paper containing the name of candidate would be considered correct.
Naek said that 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 the 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.