*ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) reserved on Wednesday a verdicton former prime minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani’s petition challengingthe election of the Senate chairman.*
IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah took up the petition. After a preliminaryhearing, the court reserved its judgement on the maintainability of thepetition, which is likely to be announced shortly.
During the hearing, the top IHC judge suggested that the petitioner couldsend a reference to the National Assembly speaker under Article 63 to havehis 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 theprocedure for removal of the Senate chairman?” he further asked.
The judge observed that the court abstains from unnecessarily interveningin the matter. “You can take the matter to a Senate committee,” hesuggested. At this, the counsel said no committee has powers to dislodgethe Senate chairman.
Senator Gillani moved the petition through his counsel Farooq H Naekrequesting the high court to declare the result of the election of Senatechairman held on March 12 “illegal, unlawful and void”.
Read Top Stories
He further demanded that the IHC declare the rejection of seven votespolled in favour of the petitioner illegal and suspend the notificationdated March 13 regarding the re-election of Sadiq Sanjrani as Senatechairman and restrain him from carrying out his duties in this capacityuntil this petition is decided.
Gillani alleged in his petition that the government attempted to influencethe result of the election to the seat of Senate chairman to win it by hookor crook.
“During the process of counting of votes the Presiding Officer (SyedMuzaffar Hussain Shah) arbitrarily rejected 7 of the votes (the rejectedvotes) cast in the petitioner’s favour on the ground that stamp is affixedon the name of the petitioner despite protest of the petitioner’s pollingagent Senator Farooq H. Naek that the stamp had been fixed within the boxcontaining the name of the petitionern,” he contended.
“The votes rejected by the presiding officer clearly evince the voter’sintent to vote for the petitioner and no one else,” the petitioner argued.Moreover, he added, these are in compliance with the notice affixed nearthe polling booth as well as the understanding conveyed by the Senatesecretary.
