A three-member bench led by the Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry resumed the hearing of identical petitions filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI), Advocate Azhar Siddique and others against the ruling of Speaker National Assembly over the qualification of Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani.
Concluding his arguments, Aitzaz Ahsan, the counsel for the premier, contended that instant petitions were not maintainable because no fundamental right of any petitioner was violated in the matter in question. Aitzaz further argued that the decision of Speaker National Assembly on the Premier's conviction could be challenged in the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan and hence the apex court did not have adjudication to hear the matter at this stage.
He contended that Article 184 (3) could not be invoked against an individual. Upon which, Chief Justice Chaudhry observed that the petitioners had said, "The PM is not an individual but representative of 180 million people - don't you think that the fate of 180 million people is in the hands of that person who was convicted by a seven-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC)?"
Interrupting the court proceedings, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Irfan Qadir said the seven judges' bench was not authorised to decide the fate of 180 million people of Pakistan, adding that if the court had made up its mind then how was it possible for him to deliver arguments. The Chief Justice asked him to refrain from intervening in the proceedings. "We will give you sufficient time to deliver arguments so wait for your turn," the CJP said.
Aitzaz said his client did not file appeal against his conviction because he was not disqualified. Upon which, Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja observed that "disobedience in most cases can constitute ridiculing the judiciary". While challenging the hearing of the case by the SC, Aitzaz contended that neither the PM nor the court should go beyond respective jurisdiction.
Munir Paracha, the counsel for the Federation, said that petitions in question were not maintainable. According to him, under the 18th Amendment the Parliament enhanced the powers of the Speaker whereas under Article 63 disqualification of a member is linked to the charge of defaming and ridiculing the judiciary but the PM has neither defamed nor ridiculed the judiciary.
On his turn, the AGP submitted Speaker National Assembly Dr Fehmida Mirza's reply before the bench and said that the PM's disqualification was not an issue before the 7-judge bench. The seven-member bench went well beyond its jurisdiction with reference to Article 63 (1) G of the Constitution of Pakistan. Responding to AGP, Justice Jawwad S.Khawaja said, "A three-member bench cannot revisit decision of a seven-member bench".
Objecting the use of poetry in the judgement the AGP said it ridiculed the PM upon which the CJP expressed dismay saying, "I warn you, it is too much, it would be best to avoid crossing the limits - be relevant". "According to me every thing related to PM's disqualification is relevant," the AGP said and questioned why other pending cases in the SC were not being taken on board and only the case in question was being taken at a fast pace. He prayed the bench to allow live coverage or ban the media from reporting. But again the CJP asked him to be specific in his arguments. "Article 63 should be taken in integrity not in isolation," the AGP said. Later the bench adjourned hearing till June 19.