The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, counsel for the Prime Minister in contempt of court proceedings, to conclude his arguments on Thursday.
Justice Nasirul Mulk heading a seven-member bench insisted that the counsel should conclude his arguments on Thursday as it was decided last week that he would finalize his arguments till Thursday.
Aitzaz Ahsan, however, disagreed and said that he had not made such a commitment in this regard.
He said "Sorry, I cannot curtail my arguments as I have done great research. Moreover, I have to stand before you for hours to argue while you are seated."
Upon Justice Ejaz Ahmed Chaudhry's remark, the counsel replied that he would not curtail his contentions as it was a criminal trial and the accused had full opportunity to defend himself.
He said that the bench could do whatever it liked. "It is an issue of trial in which each charge has to be read out thoroughly. I never prolonged the proceedings. If you want you can apply guillotine by Thursday."
Resuming his arguments, Aitzaz contended that if there was law of Contempt of Court Ordinance, it could be violative of Article 10A and the bench had either to accept it or to reject it.
He said it brooked no law to curtail a right given under Article 10A as when there were fundamental rights, the law had to be ignored as being void.
Raising his objection to hearing of the case by the same bench, the counsel said that in Dr Mobashar Hassan's implementation case (NRO), no application or complaint was moved by anyone.
"There is no cavils that you can do justice, but here the question is of disqualification as the same bench which acted as complainant could not conduct further proceedings," he added.
Replying to a bench's query, he said the practice of constitution and the judges who had initiated process under the relevant law was violative of Article 10A mandated by Article 8.
"There is no place for Anglo Saxon laws, Article 10A has provided the due process for fair trial. The practice or usage of laws is ultra vires of the Constitution," he added.
The counsel also cited a number of judicial verdicts of Supreme Court of Pakistan and India to establish his point of view over fundamental rights and laws being treated as void.
Further hearing was adjourned till Wednesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment