Aaj Logo

Updated 07 Jul, 2012 07:46am

Speaker’s ruling: AG argues to re-visit the case

Attorney General Irfan Qadir wanted to form a larger bench to re-visit the case without filing an appeal.

The three-member Bench heard the case headed by CJP, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry including Justice Chaudhry, Justice Jawad S Khwaja and Justice Khilji Arif.

As the proceedings resumed today, Counsel of PM, Aitzaz Ahsan presented his arguments before the court.

Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, challenged the hearing of case by the SC, arguing that neither provincial government become the party in it nor anyone's fundamental right was affected. 'The court can not go beyond its jurisdiction, the petitioners should have approached the high court first.'

CJP remarked that, A prime minister does not only represent a party, but is also a country’s representative. A convicted person is representing 18billion people."

Applicants condemned all the decisions of a convicted PM. A convicted Prime Minister heading parliamentary sessions and approving budget, said CJ.

AG Irfan Qadir interrupted between the arguments and said that petitions could not be heard so discard them, upon which CJ expressed great charging and ordered him to be in his limits.

Today, AGl Irfan Qadir submitted a reply before the judicial bench on behalf of Speaker National Assembly, Fehmida Mirza.

During the previous hearing on June 15, SC rejected Aitazaz Ahsan’s plea for grace period.

The court took up the case on June 14 and said that it would not prolong proceedings of the matter. It has already also rejected Aitzaz Ahsan’s plea to adjourn the case for a week.

On June 15, The National Assembly also adopted a government-moved resolution to support Speaker Dr Fehmida Mirza’s ruling last month, in which she refused to disqualify Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani following his conviction in a contempt case.

Moved by Law Minister Farooq H Naek seconds before the key session was prorogued, the resolution emphatically stated that the ruling was part of house proceedings and could not be challenged in any court of law.

Read Comments