Khan had contended that he had not been consulted on the appointment of Chairman NAB in accordance with the law. The bench ruled in its short order: "For the reasons to be recorded later in the detailed judgement, we hold and declare that consultation in the appointment of Chairman NAB was not made in accordance with Section 6 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 and the law declared by this Court. Consequently, this Constitution petition is allowed, the impugned appointment of Bukhari is declared to be without lawful authority and is set aside with immediate effect. The Federal Government is directed to make fresh appointment without further loss of time".
During the course of proceedings, Akram Sheikh, the counsel for Khan, pleaded that the President only forwarded one name for consultation while his client had insisted that more nominations should have been made.
Attorney General for Pakistan Irfan Qadir submitted that the court should show restraint and take a middle course while deciding the petition. He maintained that the post-November 3, 2007 tendency of striking down executive appointments through judicial verdicts must be avoided. He further pleaded that the President was the appointing authority of the NAB chairman and did not require the leader of the opposition's consent.
Sardar Latif Khosa, who was representing Bokhari, argued that proper consultation did take place prior to the appointment of Chairman NAB.
Khosa accused Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan of creating hurdles in the appointment of Chairman NAB, saying references were pending against his party leaders in the anti-graft body. He added that in the current petition of quo warranto Chaudhry Nisar had not raised any objection to the eligibility of Bokhari as NAB head and only disagreed with the proposed nomination of the President.