ISLAMABAD: Citing Article 69 of the Constitution which bars courts from inquiring into the proceedings of the parliament, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday dismissed Senator Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani’s plea against Senate Chairman Sadiq Sanjrani’s election, and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) have announced that they will challenge the verdict.
The court in its 13-page verdict said that the petition to declare Senate chairman election results null and void, filed by Farooq H Naek of PPP on behalf of Gillani, is beyond the jurisdiction of the court.
Responding to the verdict, PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari stated the polling process at a polling station cannot be described as parliamentary proceedings, adding that the PPP will exercise its legitimate right to go to an elevated forum for seeking justice under the principle that a presiding officer has no right to engineer the polling process and results.
He said that the PPP believes in parliamentary and constitutional supremacy, admitting that the Constitution bars calling into question the proceedings of the parliament. “However,” he added, “this was not a proceeding of the parliament”.
He termed the so-called theft of Senate chairmanship as a “litmus test” for the democratic system, expressing the fear that such manipulations may occur again in the future.
He maintained that the PPP candidate, Yousaf Raza Gillani, had a legal right to the position of Senate chairman. Bilawal underscored that the PPP had the right to knock on elevated forums and that the theft would not be allowed to stand.
Earlier in the day, IHC Chief Justice (CJ) Athar Minallah took up the petition and after a preliminary hearing, the court reserved its judgement on the maintainability of the petition.
During the hearing, the top IHC judge suggested that the petitioner could send a reference to the National Assembly (NA) speaker under Article 63 to have his grievance redressed. “Has the Senate chairman ever been removed from the post in the past?” Justice Minallah asked Farooq H Naek, who represented Gillani. “What is the procedure for removal of the Senate chairman?” he further asked.
The judge observed that the court abstains from unnecessarily intervening in the matter. “You can take the matter to a Senate committee,” he suggested. At this, the PPP counsel said that no committee has powers to dislodge the Senate chairman.
Senator Gillani moved the petition through his counsel requesting the high court to declare the result of the election of Senate chairman held on March 12 “illegal, unlawful and void”.
He further demanded that the IHC declare the rejection of seven votes polled in favour of the petitioner illegal and suspend the notification dated March 13 regarding the re-election of Sadiq Sanjrani as Senate chairman and restrain him from carrying out his duties in this capacity until this petition is decided.
Gillani alleged in his petition that the government attempted to influence the result of the election to the seat of Senate chairman to win it by hook or crook. “During the process of counting of votes the Presiding Officer (PO) [Syed Muzaffar Hussain Shah] arbitrarily rejected 7 of the votes [the rejected votes] cast in the petitioner’s favour on the ground that stamp is affixed on the name of the petitioner despite the protest of the petitioner’s polling agent Senator Farooq H Naek that the stamp had been fixed within the box containing the name of the petitioner,” he contended.
“The votes rejected by the presiding officer clearly evince the voter’s intent to vote for the petitioner and no one else,” the petitioner argued. Moreover, he added, these are in compliance with the notice affixed near the polling booth as well as the understanding conveyed by the Senate secretary.
On March 12, the ruling PTI-backed candidates grabbed the top slots of the Senate in a controversial contest. In the polls, incumbent Senate Chairman Sanjrani was re-elected. He defeated Gillani, a joint candidate of the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) – an opposition parties’ alliance.
98 senators had exercised their right to vote, out of which seven votes – most of which cast in favour of Gillani – were rejected. Sanjrani who had received 48 votes as opposed to 42 votes of Gillani was later declared the winner by the presiding officer.
