ISLAMABAD, March 18: A special bench of Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the petition of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for hearing by full bench of the petitions challenging the elevation of three judges of Lahore High Court to the apex court.

The court, after hearing the counsels, dismissed the application at the end of the day’s proceedings and announced that hearing on the merits of the petitions would begin on Tuesday.

As the proceedings started, SCBA President Hamid Khan stated that he had moved an application demanding that full court should hear the case.

Chief Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad observed that the Supreme Court had to decide other cases as well, and the litigants could not be made to suffer for high profile cases. The other four members of the bench are, Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq, Justice Mian Mohammad Ajmal, Justice Deedar Hussain Shah and Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar.

The SCBA president, however, insisted that he should be allowed to make his submission as he wanted to place before the court a principle laid by it itself on the question of constitution of bench.

Acknowledging that it was the prerogative of the chief justice to form a bench, he cited cases in which important questions were placed before the full courts.

He begun his arguments by citing the cases involving former chief justice, Sajjad Ali Shah.

He said the dicta of the Akhunzada Bahrawar Saeed versus Sajjad Ali Shah and the Asad Ali versus the federation cases was that all the SC judges who were available and willing should decide the important cases collectively.

The CJ observed that the cases cited by Hamid Khan had no relevance with the present case. The counsel, however, insisted that the principles enunciated by the court were applicable in the case.

The CJ observed that maligning the judiciary had become a fashion. The counsel said that the bar was endeavouring for transparency.

Another petitioner, A.K. Dogar advocate stated that the Supreme Court could not be bifurcated into benches and the apex court had to sit and rise together like the US Supreme Court.

The CJ observed that the US system was different from Pakistan’s.

When Dogar was on his legs, Attorney-General Makhdoom Ali Khan rose to point out that two lawyers could not argue one application. When Dogar made some uncharitable remarks, prominent lawyer Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, appearing for the federation, rose to support the attorney-general and said that “over excitement” of Aslam Dogar was uncalled for.

Mr Dogar said it was common knowledge for those who had practised on civil side that more than one lawyer could argue the same application.

On some remarks by Mr Dogar, Justice Deedar Hussain Shah observed that it was unfair to utter such words for a lawyer of Hafeez Prizada’s prestige.

A.K. Dogar stated that it was the duty of every judge to decide cases and senior judges could not be deprived of their duty towards the nation. The counsel argued that the chief Justice should exercise his power to form benches, reasonably.

Dr Farooq Hasan, counsel for petitioner Advocate Nawaz Kharal, stated that the full court should hear the petitions as appointment of judges was too serious a matter. He said highest prerogative of the US president was to appoint judges to the supreme court.

He stated that the SC granted legitimacy to the government and it could not afford illegitimacy in its own backyard.

Dr Hasan said that when all the bar leaders were raising their voice, there must be a reason for that. “Ceaser’s wife should be above all suspicions,” he quoted Shakespeare.

The CJ pointed out that client of Dr Farooq Hasan had prayed that he should be appointed Supreme Court judge. The counsel said that his client was not demanding for himself but for the lawyers’s community.

The counsel said that the principle of propriety demanded that the case should be heard by the full court.

Pakistan Bar Council Vice-Chairman Shakeel, Mian Allah Nawaz, counsel for Barrister Zafarullah, and Hafiz Abdul Rehman Ansari supported the contentions of the SCBA president.

Pirzada stated that constitution of the bench was the sole prerogative of the CJ. He said the Al-Jehad case, which was the basis of subsequent judgments, was decided by a bench of five judges, one of them an ad hoc judge of the SC.

The counsel said that the facts of the case were not very complex and there was no allegation of bias, as was alleged in the case of Sajjad Ali Shah.

The attorney-general stated that facts and legal principles of the petitions were not very complex. He said all the major judgments in relation to superior court judges were decided by the five-judge benches and added that even in India, where identical matters were decided by the Supreme Court, all judges did not sit to decide such cases.

When the SCBA president stated that the bench which had decided the Al-Jehad case had representation from all the federating units, the chief justice asked him not to bring parochialism in the case.

The CJ dismissed the application and announced that hearing of the petitions merits would begin on Tuesday.