The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Wednesday asked the Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP), Irfan Qadir, to identify a single constitutional provision allowing the president to throw away court’s judgments.

The observation was issued during the hearing into a contempt of court petition against President Asif Zardari, moved by Munir Ahmed through Azhar Siddqiue. Justice Umar Ata Bandial, the Lahore High Court (LHC) chief justice (CJ), was heading the bench comprising Justice Nasir Saeed Sheikh, Justice Sheikh Najamul Hassan, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah that heard the case.

The federation’s counsel, Wasim Sajjad, who was likely to start his counter arguments, did not turn up and Qadir made asurprise appearance in his place. The AG informed the bench that Wasim Sajjad could not appear due to his engagement before the Supreme Court (SC) in Islamabad.

Qadir aggressively extended his arguments against maintainability of the petition at the beginning. He remained unmoved when the CJ asked him to tell the bench whether contempt of court proceedings could be initiated against the president in presence of Article 248 (2) of the constitution or not.

The AG, however, insisted that he could not discuss the constitutional immunity unless the maintainability of the instant petition was decided by the bench. He contended that instant contempt petition against the president was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed because no case could be taken up against the president.

At this, Justice Shah remarked that interpretation of Article 248 (2) was necessary to decide maintainability of the petition. Qadir said the president took oath of his office under the constitution, not under any judgment passed by the court.

He said the president could not be forced to do anything outside the ambit of the constitution. He pointed out that review petitions had been filed against most of the judgments cited by the petitioner.

However, the bench observed that no interim relief was granted by the SC in review petitions so far, so the original judgments were still holding the field. Criticising the SC judgment in Yusuf Raza Gilani case, the attorney general claimed that the government accepted the verdict, despite having many reservations, only to avoid clash of institutions.

He posed a query to the judges to show any provision in the constitution, binding the president to act under the directions of courts. Making a counter query, Justice Sheikh asked the AG to identify a single constitutional provision allowing the president to throw away court’s judgments.

The law officer said holding two offices is a political matter and the court should not pass judgments on such issues. Expressing doubts over the credentials of the advocates from the petitioner side, Qadir urged the judges to find out hidden hands behind the petition before proceeding with the case.

He went on to say that the same advocates got a wrong judgment on Kalabagh Dam issue by misleading the court. He said the KBD verdict lacked legal assistance on many points. “A dignified chief justice like you was also deluded,” the AG pointed towards CJ Umar Ata Bandial.

CJ Bandial interrupted the attorney general and warned him that he was not supposed to criticise court’s judgments in such a manner.

However, the law officer continued his arguments till the chief justice rebuked him, saying, “If you are well conversant with the constitution, you must know you cannot discuss a judgment before the author judge. You do not have the liberty to discuss other judgments here and we are not here to face personal attacks.”

The CJ warned the AG against criticising the court and its decisions, and exhorted him to show respect towards courts and judges. The AG said it was his duty to present the whole story before the court. The CJ asked the AG to sit on his seat, if he did not have any legal argument on the issue.

The law officer resumed his arguments and said political questions should not be brought to courts, as it leads to confrontation among the institutions. Justice Shah questioned should a court verdict on a political issue not be obeyed? The AG replied that the May 12, 2011, judgment of the LHC was not practicable.

He said in a case where implementation of a judgment could not be sought, the contempt of court proceedings could not be initiated. He said the court, in its judgment of May 12, had not issued any restraining order but expressed its expectations. Opposing the judgment, he said it was an outcome of one-sided legal assistance.

Qadir stated that the court could interpret the constitution but could not rewrite it. The chief justice observed that the court had not issued any direct order, keeping in view the integrity of the office of the president.

At this point, the AG said, “The office of the president is highly respectable but your (CJ) remarks show that you are considering yourself superior to the president.”

CJ Bandial replied that the court had very much regard for the president’s office; therefore, it used the word of grace. “You may be good at English and can drive better meaning of the remarks.” The chief justice asked the AG to come up Thursday (today) with arguments on the issue of immunity.

Earlier, advocates Azhar Siddique and AK Dogar also advanced their brief arguments on behalf of the petitioner. On the court’s instruction, Siddique also read out speech delivered by Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, federal law minister at the time of approval of the constitution in 1973.

The counsel tried to establish that the role of the president was ceremonial and the whole business of the government is run in his name. Azhar insisted that the court issue show-cause notice to President Asif Zardari for continuously defying the court verdict issued in the dual office case in 2011.

He contended that the president is not immune from contempt proceedings and the SC had clarified this point in its judgment against Contempt of Court Act 2012.

Citing the apex court verdict in Asghar Khar case, he said the president could not hold a political office. He said Article 248 (2) had no overriding affects on Article 6 and 204 of the constitution.

AK Dogar argued that there was no need to hear arguments on immunity, as the case had reached a stage of framing charges on the contemnor. He also insisted that the court issue show-cause notice to President Zardari, saying the court could not waste six months more on hearing arguments.

The chief justice, however, observed that the constitution prohibited criminal proceedings against the president. “Convicting the president is tantamount to convicting the state,” the CJ remarked and added that all decisions are made by the prime minister whereas the president makes none.

During the course of the arguments, Justice Shah also asked the petitioner’s counsel to cite a single example in country’s history when a democratically-elected president had subverted the constitution.

Justice Shah said dictators and third forces had abrogated the constitution. The court adjourned hearing till Thursday (today) and asked the AG to extend arguments on presidential immunity.