The summon was issued by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain when it resumed hearing of five identical petitions seeking a treason trial against Pervez Musharraf under Article 6 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
During the course of proceeding, Ahmad Raza Kasuri, counsel for Musharraf requested to establish a larger bench, as many important questions would raise in the case thus a larger bench would be required for the purpose.
Kasuri argued that it was an obligation of the state to initiate any proceedings and no bench could initiate it on its own, adding that separation of powers conferred to institutions must be followed.
He termed the proceedings by the 14-judge larger bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC) an ex-party proceedings, as his client was convicted unheard and in his absence.
Ibraheem Satti, another counsel for Musharraf while responding to a petition filed by Abdul Hakeem Khan also requested for establishing a larger bench giving the references of different cases in which the apex court established larger benches due to their importance.
He quoted examples of India, America and other countries, where a constitutional petition is always heard by a larger bench.
Satti argued that in our country it was the discretionary power of the Chief Justice to constitute benches after observing the sensitivity of the cases.
Upon which Justice Khilji Arif Hussain remarked that Satti could file an application requesting the Chief Justice for forming a larger bench and rest would be upto the Chief Justice.
Justice Jawwad remarked that the judges always decide cases on their merit and they were there to deliver justice apart from any prejudice.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Irfan Qadir requested the Supreme Court for an extra week to submit a detailed reply on behalf of the federation.
The time was sought to answer questions pertaining to whether Article 6 applies to Musharraf and he should be tried for treason or not.
He continued saying that it must be watched that any such action should not affect the fairness of the caretaker government.
The bench questioned that why the federation was hesitating to initiate proceeding against Musharraf and still no record was presented before the court.
Upon which, Sohail Qadir Siddiqui, Acting Secretary Law apprised the court that the law ministry does not have any record adding that it was not the duty of the law ministry to initiate the proceeding, rather the relevant would be the interior department to proceed in that regard.
He stated that a notification had already been issued to initiate proceeding and the relevant person would be Secretary Interior.
Later, the court directed the secretary interior to present complete record before the bench while following the unanimous resolution passed by the Senate and adjourned further hearing till April 22.
It is to mention here that the Senate on January 23, 2012 had passed a unanimous resolution against the former President and retired army chief Pervez Musharraf be arrested immediately on his arrival in the country and the Federal Government should institute a case under Article 6 of the Constitution against him.