Daily Times

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday instructed the Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) to provide cases’ references to the petitioner’s counsel regarding the subject in an intra court appeal (ICA) of Senator Yousaf Raza Gilani challenging rejections of seven votes in the Senate chairman election.

The bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri heard the ICA of Pakistan Peoples Party’s Yousaf Raza Gilani challenging the decision of single member bench regarding the Senate chairman polls.

Gilani’s Lawyer Farook H Naek contended that the single member bench had rejected their case on the ground that the matter pertained to parliamentary proceedings, and that it was an internal subject of the Upper House of Parliament.

Moreover, the decision also stated that there was an alternative forum for the petitioner but without pointing out the same, he added. Naek pleaded that his client was a candidate for the post of Senate chairman. The Secretary Senate briefed the senators that a stamp in the box on ballot paper containing the name of candidate would be considered correct, he claimed.

At this, Justice Farooq observed that the details of Secretary Senate’s brief could not be verified.

To a court’s query, Naek said Sadiq Sanjrani and Yousaf Raza Gilani had received 49 and 42 votes respectively, while seven votes were rejected by the presiding officer.

He said 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, he asked. The lawyer said the presiding officer belonged to the PPP’s opponent party, and the rejection of seven votes by him was unlawful.

Justice Farooq asked to whom the court would issue notices if the case was admitted for hearing. The lawyer answered that it would be issued to the Senate Secretariat and the presiding officer.

After this, the court instructed AGP Khalid Javed Khan to provide the judicial references to the petitioner’s lawyer regarding the matter and adjourned the hearing till June 1.