The Supreme Judicial Council adjourned hearing of the application filed by Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry in the reference against him to April 3, 2007, Acting Registrar/Secretary, Supreme Judicial Council, said in a press release issued here on Tuesday afternoon. "Notices to all concerned have been issued accordingly," he added.
Sources said that the SJC was due to hear the reference on Wednesday at 3.30pm. But, as the senior most Judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Rana Baghwandas was expected to reach Lahore from India, after expiry of his leave, on the afternoon of March 22, he would take the oath of Acting Chief Justice the same day, it was considered prudent to adjourn the hearing.
The President of Supreme Court Bar Association, Munir A Malik, who is a member of the Chief Justice's panel of defence lawyers, and the executive body of the SCBA, described the press release of the Acting Registrar as misleading. Munir argued that hearing could not be adjourned suo motu through an administrative order, for only SJC could take this decision, after hearing the respondent.
He said that Justice Iftikhar had not filed any 'application' in SJC, but had raised objections to the composition of the Supreme Judicial Council as two Judges on the SJC were biased against him and, secondly, no one could be appointed as Acting Chief Justice in the presence of the Chief Justice. He said that the SJC was to give its decision on these objections before taking up the reference.
Munir said that appointment of Justice Rana Baghwandas as Acting Chief Justice would also be unconstitutional, though he should preside over the SJC. He said that Justice Iftikhar's panel of advocates had taken notice of President Musharraf's contradictory statements at Gujranwala, and Pakpatton and his long interview with Kamran Khan of Geo TV with regard to circumstances leading to the filing of the reference and subsequent happenings. He said that the panel would decide whether to call President Musharraf in the witness box for cross-examination before the Supreme Judicial Council.
Comments
Comments are closed.