PESHAWAR, May 28: A lawyer on Monday moved the Peshawar High Court challenging the National Assembly speaker’s ruling that the prime minister can’t be disqualified after his conviction by the Supreme Court for contempt.

Advocate Abdus Samad Marwat, regional head of Human Rights Commission South Asia, filed the petition, seeking interim relief from the court by saying that the May 24 ruling of the speaker may be suspended until the final decision on the case.

Respondents in the petition are the federation of Pakistan through secretary law and justice; the Election Commission; the speaker of the National Assembly through the registrar of the assembly, and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani through his principal secretary.

The petitioner raised several questions like whether the ruling of the speaker was in accordance with the Constitution governing the subject and whether it was not in conflict with the substantive articles and preamble of the Constitution of Pakistan, and whether the speaker in light of Article 63 (2) of the Constitution was authorised to declare a parliamentarian not disqualified who had already been convicted, sentenced and undergone the punishment through the Supreme Court orders. He also asked if it was not necessary and appropriate for the speaker under the Constitution to refer the matter of disqualification of the prime minister to the Election Commission.

The petitioner said the National Assembly speaker had to proceed into the matter in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court under Article 63 (2) of the Constitution and had to refer the question regarding disqualification of the prime minister to the Election Commission within 30 days.

He said the prime minister who was convicted and sentenced on Apr 26 by the apex court was supposed to file an appeal against that order within a month but he could not do so for the reasons best known to him and as such the order of the Supreme Court attained finality.

The petitioner said the impugned ruling/decision had been passed in conjectures and surmises, without application of judicial mind in hasty manner and facts/material available on record were not appreciated in true perspective and hence, the speaker made a wrong conclusion, which had caused grave miscarriage of justice.