Yousaf Raza Gillani Challenges Election of Chairman Senate, Files ICA

The ICA filed by the Leader of the House Senator Yousaf Raza Gillani, challenging the Election of the Chairman Senate was heard today before the Division Bench of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad.

Senator Yousaf Raza Gilani had filed an Intra Court Appeal against the Order of the Islamabad High Court whereby Justice Athar Minallah had quashed a petition filed by Senator Gilani challenging the election of the Chairman for the Senate held on 03.03.2021. Senator Sadiq Sanjrani had defeated Senator Gilani by 5 votes.

Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, ASC, representing the Chairman Senate Senator Sadiq Sanjrani, argued the case in length before the Hon’ble Division Bench of the IHC. Barrister Zafar informed the Division Bench that the Pakistani Constitution had two “no tanks on the lawn” arrangement to keep the Parliament and the Courts off each other’s territories i.e. the Parliament could neither interfere with subjudice matters nor question any court proceedings and, similarly, the Courts could not interfere in any Parliamentary proceedings in any manner.

Barrister Zafar argued that under the Pakistan Constitution, the Parliament is supreme and not subordinate to the Courts. Neither the courts nor the Senate had the jurisdiction to send notices/directions to each other. Hence, the Senate cannot be made party to any writ petition or any other court proceedings.

These were “privileges” enjoyed by the Senate, its members, the Chairman and any Presiding Officer (conducting the elections of Chairman Senate). Barrister Zafar argued that the Petitioner, Senator Gilani, who is also the Leader of the Opposition, had himself breached this very privilege by challenging the election of the Chairman, which were considered to be internal proceedings of the Senate, and that it was in fact is barred under the Constitution not to interfere with the proceedings of the Parliament. He further stated that if the Court decides to issue any notices to the Senate or pass any directions, it would be in violation of the independence of the organs of the state, concept of separation of powers and would amount to contempt. Both institutions had to recognize each other constitutional roles whilst conducting business of the house.

Barrister Zafar, in his arguments, relied on jurisprudence from all over the world, including the landmark English case of Bradlaugh v Gossett (1889). In this case it had been held by the British Courts that they could not interfere in the internal management of the house and its procedures.

Barrister Zafar by providing references to British law, as well as laws of several other constitutionally governed states of the world, where there is the concept of parliament, argued that all these states envisaged, in their constitutions, mechanisms for Parliaments to regulate their own procedures, and the Court did not have the jurisdiction to interfere in any Parliament. He referred to the famous Judges of the English Court who had said that what is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be inquired into in a court of law or elsewhere, even if the matter was for the purpose of supporting a cause of action. The jurisdiction of the Houses over their own members, their right to impose discipline within their walls, is absolute and exclusive.

In the end, Barrister Zafar submitted that the sources of parliamentary privileges enjoyed by the Pakistan Parliament emanate from those enjoyed by members of the House of Commons in the UK. Mr. Zafar referred to the Constitution to argue that it is therefore abundantly clear and absolute that the privileges of the UK House of Commons are applicable. The Parliament can make its own rules or procedure to regulate its proceedings and the conduct of its business. The Parliamentary proceedings cannot be questioned on any ground of irregularity in Courts. The Courts have no jurisdiction to examine the decisions made in Parliamentary proceedings.

Mr. Zafar argued that the decision of Presiding Officer in rejecting the votes and the decision of the Presiding Officer in declaring the results of Chairman Senate, are all proceedings “in Senate” and “of Senate” and are decisions and actions taken in the conduct of Senate’s own business, and, hence, no Court has the jurisdiction to interfere.

Mr. Zafar was still on his legs when the case was adjourned till the 27th for his remaining arguments.

PCTB Confiscates Grade 7 Book for Publishing Malala’s Picture

Noor-ul-Haq Qadri Against Ban on Conversion of Persons Under 18

How To Earn Money Through Cryptocurrency?

Stay tuned to Baaghi TV for the latest news and updates!