The Supreme Court Tuesday told Aitzaz Ahsan, the counsel for Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani, to conclude his arguments by Thursday, saying that a period of 10 days was sufficient to discuss Article 10(a) of Constitution - an argument he'd been advancing from day one.
Aitzaz, who was making his arguments in contempt case against PM Gilani for failing to act on the apex court's orders to revive graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari in Switzerland, told the bench that the arguments could not be completed so early, as he had a lot more to say. "I need some more time as I've to elaborate [Article 10(a)] based on evidence....I also assure you that I'll not refer to any such ruling that may mislead the court and waste its time," he told the court.
Justice Ejaz Chaudhry, a member of seven-member special bench, observed that the case was delaying many other cases and the court could not give any further time in this case. A sombre-looking Aitzaz replied: "This is my consent...if the court wants to do so, I've no problem...". Justice Nasirul Mulk asked Aitzaz "Mr Aitzaz without your consent we will ask you to conclude your arguments by Wednesday".
Aitzaz argued that the court had been referring the matter to the parliament if they found any flaw in the law, adding the apex court sent 18th Constitutional Amendment case to the parliament which resulted in the 19th Amendment. According to him, the court may issue an order to bring contempt law in conformity with Article 10(a) of the Constitution, pleading the court to issue an order to restrain the bench, which took suo motu contempt notice, from further handling the proceedings against PM Gilani. Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmani remarked that the court always took a suo motu action for implementation of its own order. Aitzaz then recited a verse from Bahadur Shah Zafar's poetry: Jisei teish mei khauf-e-Khuda na raha.
Justice Gulzar Ahmed promptly remarked that "judges do not give verdicts in anger." Aitzaz said that his case did not pertain to any bias or refusal but it was a case covered under Article 10(a), which had brought a radical change in the process of trial.
According to him, it is a case of disqualification and a judge who has initiated contempt cannot sit as judge in his own complaint as it is prohibited under Article 10(a). Justice Ejaz Afzal remarked that it was not a case in which the contempt was committed in face of a judge or his bench but it was an issue of contempt of whole court and there was difference in the both cases.
Justice Osmani questioned the counsel to explain to them how their directive on NRO could be implemented. Aitzaz replied that the court was not an appropriate forum for implementation of the judgement as under Article 187 of the Constitution the issue could be sent to Islamabad High Court. He agreed with Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa's observations that he wanted to attack customs and practices. Citing a number of judicial verdicts, he said that every law in the country could not be in conformity with Article 10(a) after 2010.
Justice Khosa told him that a right of appeal was provided in High Court through Intra-Court Appeal. The counsel contended that he was objecting to competence of the bench. According to him, right of appeal has been provided in all kinds of laws. Citing a judgement over issue of bias and disqualification of the bench, he said Justice Douglas - an associate justice of US Supreme Court from October 16, 1898 - January 19, 1980), even refrained from reading newspapers. He said such an issue could not be agitated before the other bench as trial had not been completed. The hearing was adjourned till Wednesday.