The Islamabad High Court has dismissed former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s petition challenging the recent election of the Senate chairman, where rejected votes for Gilani were greater than the margin of victory. The ruling was on jurisdictional grounds and the separation of powers. Without commenting on the election itself, IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah ruled that the Senate was “immune from the interference” of the high court. He also wrote that any attempt to “interfere” in parliamentary proceedings would “undermine the dignity, prestige and independence” of parliament and “expose the apex constitutional legislative forum to undesirable and unwarranted criticism”.
The court also has a message for politicians. “This Court expects that, in order to maintain the dignity, integrity and independence of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), the chosen representatives and political leadership will endeavour to resolve disputes without involving the judicial branch of the State, by giving effect to the privileges, powers and immunities prescribed in the Constitution,” the IHC judgement says. The judge also noted that under Senate rules, the chairman can still be removed through a majority resolution.
PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari later issued a statement that showed respect for most of the judgment but argued that the case referred to an election rather than regular Senate proceedings. The implication was that courts are constitutionally empowered to hear election-related cases. This will probably be the argument under which the PPP will appeal the ruling. Whether or not they can successfully make this argument is up for debate. However, the fact that it can be made shows further weaknesses in our election system.
As a losing argument, it brings up the need for open voting for the election of chairman since it would be then considered Senate business, and we, the people, are entitled to know how our senators voted on official business. As a winning argument, it shows why reforms are needed in the process. The mere fact that six per cent of the votes cast in any election could be summarily thrown out with no neutral avenue for appeal is a reminder of the many lawless ways in which the upper house of lawmakers operates.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 26th, 2021.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ