The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the respondents in Sharif brothers review petitions against their disqualification from holding any elected office and allowed the Federal government to submit additional arguments in the case as well.
A five-member larger bench of the apex court, comprising Justice Tassaduq Jillani, Justice Nasirul Mulk, Justice Moosa Leghari, Justice Sheikh Hakim Ali and Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed adjourned the hearing till Tuesday.
Deputy Attorney General Agha Tariq Mehmood represented the Federation, and requested the court to allow him to make additional arguments in the review filed by the Federation against disqualification of Sharif brothers, which the court accepted.
Meanwhile, advocate Ahmed Raza Kasuri, counsel for Syed Khurram Shah, raised objection over the composition of the bench and filed an application under order XXXIII Rule 6 of Supreme Court rules for reconstitution of the bench. The application says that judgement dated February 25, 2009, which is being impugned through the review petition, was passed by three-member bench, comprising Justice Moosa K Leghari, Justice Sakhi Hussain Bokhari and Justice Sheikh Hakim Ali. However, the larger bench for hearing of the review petition does not include Justice Sakhi Hussain Bokhari.
The constitution of larger bench is not only in violation of the Supreme Court rules, 1980, but also a departure from the established practice of this court. It is prayed that the matter be referred back to the Chief Justice for the reconstitution of the bench, comprising the same judges that have delivered the judgement, the application adds.
Advocate Abid Hassan Manto appeared before the court as counsel for Nawaz Sharif, and said that the judgement of the apex court (which disqualified Sharifs) adversely affected the fundamental rights of his client. He added that his client had neither challenged the Lahore High Court order of June 23, 6-2008 against his disqualification before the Supreme Court and the judgement was passed by the apex court in his absence. "Judgement stands vitiated on account of non-appearance of my client. Judgement was ordered without hearing my client," he said.
Manto further said that the findings given by the court that the petitioner defaulted in the payment of a loan, was not supported by any document. He added that the courts finding that the power of the President to grant pardon under Article 45 of the Constitution did not wipe out the conviction, was against the plain reading of Article 25.
Manto said that the Supreme Court decided the case against his client on the information given by his rival candidate. He said that the election for NA-123 Lahore was stayed by the court, but the February 25 decision had vacated it and it was likely that the Election Commission would announce a schedule for the election, therefore, the EC may be barred from issuing election schedule.
The bench observed that since the EC had not announced any schedule, therefore, it would be premature to bar it. However, the court issued notice to the EC. Khwaja Haris, counsel for Mian Shahbaz Sharif, argued that the petitioner Khurram Shah had not challenged the qualification of his client, but had requested the court to de-notify him.
He said that the matter relating to Shahbaz Sharif was never taken up by the appellate tribunal, besides no allegations of any sort were levelled against him during the proceedings. He argued that the tribunal was constituted under section 14(5) of the Representation of Peoples Act 1976 to decide the appeals within a stipulated time period, adding a contesting candidate was given the right to file such appeal.
The court also referred an intra court appeal by Mehar Zafar, proposer of Nawaz Sharif from NA-123 against his punishment (a fine of Rs 100,000) to the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench to hear the appeal. The bench would not comprise of judges, who had passed the judgement.