Senate chairman ballot, IHC reserves verdict on Gillani’s petition

IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah took up the petition. After a preliminary listening to, the courtroom reserved its judgement on the maintainability of the petition, which is more likely to be introduced shortly.

Through the listening to, the highest IHC choose steered that the petitioner might ship a reference to the Nationwide Meeting speaker underneath Article 63 to have his grievance redressed.

“Has the Senate chairman ever been faraway from the submit up to now?” Justice Minallah requested Farooq H Naek, who represented Gillani. “What’s the process for elimination of the Senate chairman?” he additional requested.

The choose noticed that the courtroom abstains from unnecessarily intervening within the matter. “You may take the matter to a Senate committee,” he steered. At this, the counsel stated no committee has powers to dislodge the Senate chairman.

Senator Gillani moved the petition via his counsel Farooq H Naek requesting the excessive courtroom to declare the results of the election of Senate chairman held on March 12 “unlawful, illegal and void”.

He additional demanded that the IHC declare the rejection of seven votes polled in favour of the petitioner unlawful and droop the notification dated March 13 concerning the re-election of Sadiq Sanjrani as Senate chairman and restrain him from finishing up his duties on this capability till this petition is set.

Gillani alleged in his petition that the federal government tried to affect the results of the election to the seat of Senate chairman to win it by hook or criminal.

“Through the means of counting of votes the Presiding Officer (Syed Muzaffar Hussain Shah) arbitrarily rejected 7 of the votes (the rejected votes) forged within the petitioner’s favour on the bottom that stamp is affixed on the title of the petitioner regardless of protest of the petitioner’s polling agent Senator Farooq H. Naek that the stamp had been mounted throughout the field containing the title of the petitionern,” he contended.

“The votes rejected by the presiding officer clearly evince the voter’s intent to vote for the petitioner and nobody else,” the petitioner argued. Furthermore, he added, these are in compliance with the discover affixed close to the polling sales space in addition to the understanding conveyed by the Senate secretary.