ISLAMABAD, July 11: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would wind up by July 20 the hearing of the petition of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry challenging the filing of the presidential reference against him.

Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, who heads a 13-member larger bench of the court hearing the petition, observed that the legal counsel for both the government and the petitioner should conclude their arguments by July 20.

The bench said the government’s counsel, Malik Mohammad Qayyum, Sharifuddin Pirzada and Attorney General Makhdoom Ali Khan, should complete their arguments by Wednesday to give an opportunity to Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, the counsel for the chief justice, to reply to the points raised by them from Thursday.

Barrister Ahsan is expected to conclude his arguments by Friday after which the bench is likely to announce a short order.

After hearing arguments on maintainability of a number of identical petitions on the issue, the bench had announced to take up only the petition of the chief justice to decide about its merits.

At the outset on Wednesday, Supreme Court Bar Association president Munir A. Malik submitted a written statement to clarify his statement reportedly made during an interview with a private TV channel. He pleaded that his statement should be considered a slip of the tongue.

He said the press had misunderstood the words and expressions used by him during the interview.

He said he had also said during the interview that he would accept the decision of the bench, but was pained when it was not highlighted in the media. “However, when I said we will burn the Supreme Court, it was not intended as an affront to your lordships and the Supreme Court as an institution.”

Meanwhile, Malik Qayyum argued before the court that the Supreme Judicial Council was the final authority to decide the question of misconduct of a judge and could restrain a judge from performing his functions during the inquiry.

He said the report of the council was in fact a judgment within the meaning of law and, therefore, was final and a judge facing a reference should not be allowed to function in the interest of purity of administration of justice and independence of the judiciary.

He said the president had the power to send any judge on leave under Article 209 of the Constitution during inquiry against him, adding that any person having the power to remove a judge also had the power to suspend him during inquiry.

Similarly, the person who had the power to appoint a judge also had the power to remove him according to the Constitution, he maintained.