Justice Umar also posed a query to petitioner's counsel whether the court should get its judgements implemented or let it be in a state of flux. The counsel replied to the court query that non-implementation of the court's judgements would hurt many provisions of the Constitution and there would be a "no court" like situation in the country. The focus of the arguments from petitioner's side was on two points, ie, proceedings of contempt of court against President, would not be criminal in nature but civil and the immunity enjoyed by President under Article 248(2) of the Constitution was not a hurdle in way of such proceedings.
The instant case pertained to the use of Article 204 of the Constitution. He said that the court by invoking Article 204 of the constitution could punish any person who wilfully disobeyed a judgement of the court. He said the apex court in its judgement against Contempt of Court Law 2012 had declared that Article 248(1) of the Constitution did not grant immunity to any public office holder from any criminal proceeding. He said the Supreme Court also held that Article 248(1) was in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. He said the apex court did not touch clause 2 of the Article 248 being irrelevant in the case against Contempt of Court Law. Petitioner's counsel A. K. Dogar further questioned how it could be possible that Article 25 was applicable on clause 1 of Article 248 and not on clause 2. It must be applied on Article 248 as a whole, he added.
The bench observed that the government functionaries or public office holders had been granted immunity to protect them from frivolous litigation, otherwise, it would become impossible for them to perform their official responsibilities and there would be a chaos.
Replying to this observation, Dogar said non- implementation of court's judgements would lead to anarchy in the country. He said the immunity granted to the President and others was in sheer violation of basic principles of Islam too. At this, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah observed that the people of the country would get the law of immunity abolished if they considered it against Islam. He also put a question whether or not the people of Pakistan could change the Constitution.
The counsel, however, replied in the negative and said people could do this only through a revolution. "Once a Constitution is made it can only be changed according to procedure provided in it," he added. Continuing his arguments against constitutional immunity enjoyed by President, Dogar said the immunity could not be extended to illegal and unconstitutional acts. He said all public office holders including President were bound to obey the law and Constitution.
He argued that under Article 63 of the Constitution President could be disqualified for not obeying the court's orders as it was done in the case of former Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. Justice Mansoor Shah pointed out that the said article pertained to the disqualification of parliamentarians not the President. How Article 63 was applicable on President, he asked the counsel.
The counsel stated that under Article 41 the eligibility for President was equal as for a member of National Assembly, therefore, the disqualification process would be the same. Justice Mansoor observed that the Constitution had provided a procedure of President's removal under Article 47. "If people of Pakistan think their President is not obeying the judgements of courts they can demand his impeachment," the judge remarked. The bench adjourned further hearing till Thursday (today) and asked the counsel to come up with arguments about constitutional concepts of civil and criminal proceedings.