ISLAMABAD: The counsel for Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani on Tuesday concluded arguments in the petition he had filed against victory of Sadiq Sanjrani in the election for Senate chairman.

Mr Gilani’s counsel Advocate Farooq H. Naek in his concluding arguments cited a number of relevant laws and legal precedence.

The election to the post of Senate chairman was held under Article 60 of the Constitution on March 12. Mr Sanjrani was elected in a very close contest as the presiding officer reje­cted seven crucial votes of Mr Gilani.

The chief justice of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) had on March 24 dismissed the petition filed against the election.

Mr Gilani then filed an intra-court appeal in the IHC. A division bench of the IHC comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri on Tuesday resumed the hearing on this appeal.

Advocate Naek pointed out that procedure for election is laid down in Rule 09 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Senate, 2012. There is no methodology on marking at the ballot paper.

“There is no procedure for marking the votes either in Article 60 of the Constitution or Rule 09 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Senate, 2012. Thus there can be no irregularity of procedure and no question of bar of Article 69,” he argued.

The counsel said the “presiding officer acted in a biased and mala fide manner. He refused to pass a speaking order and failed to take notice of guidelines provided by Senate Secretariat”.

“In the instant case there was even no irregularity of procedure as no procedure is described in the Constitution of Pakistan or Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Senate, 2012,” he argued.

According to him, the act of rejection of votes by the presiding officer was not a procedural act as it did not fall within any of the aforementioned categories. The presiding officer was not conducting the proceedings in the house but was a nominated officer of the president for the sole purpose of conducting the election to the office of Senate chairman.

He pointed out that proceedings comprised legislative and deliberative functions and not executive functions which the presiding officer was performing at that time.

Advocate Naek termed the order of the presiding officer an “illegality” which could be challenged in the court. He said “no proceedings are challenged in the court rather it was the rejection of valid votes in an election held under Article 60 was challenged to correct a patent illegality committed by the presiding officer”.

He further argued that the “act of rejection of votes was quasi-judicial as the presiding officer was exercising the administrative function”.

Advocate Syed Ali Zafar, the counsel for Sadiq Sanjrani, sought time for a rebuttal.

The court adjourned the hearing till June 10. Attorney General Khalid Jawed Khan will present arguments at the next hearing.

Published in Dawn, June 2nd, 2021