ISLAMABAD, July 12: A government counsel on Thursday again requested the Supreme Court to allow him to rely on the material submitted along with the presidential reference against the chief justice, which he had withdrawn after the bench found some of its parts ‘scandalous and vexatious’.

However, when confronted by the counsel for Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry who insisted to be allowed to call the president and the prime minister in the witness stand for cross-examination, the government’s counsel, Malik Mohammed Qayyum, changed his mind and told the court that he would rely purely on the reference, and not on the attached documents and material.

Malik Qayyum told a 13-member larger SC bench, hearing the chief justice’s petition challenging the filing of the reference against him, that he intended to read out the reference in the court on Monday but would not rely on the ‘scandalous’ documents while referring to the reference.

The counsel had withdrawn the material when the court had castigated him and suspended the licence of the state-appointed Advocate-on-Record on discovering the presence of ‘scandalous material’ in the reference earlier placed before the court by the federation’s counsel. The court also fined the federation Rs100,000 for submitting the scandalous material.

The government counsel said the court should decide that the president had applied his mind and the material was available before sending the reference against the chief justice, adding that he would not produce any witness if the court took up the reference or referred it to the Supreme Judicial Council.

“I will ask the court to let me summon the president and the prime minister for cross-examination if the adjudication of reference is left with the SJC or the full court so that I could contest my case on all available evidence,” said Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, representing the chief justice.

Malik Qayyum said he was withdrawing his request and would only read out the reference in the court when he would resume his arguments on Monday. He told the court that his client would have no objection if the composition of the SJC was changed by replacing judges against whom the petitioner had raised objections.

He said the government would also not object if the proceedings of the council were held in an open court, but suggested that hearing on documents having sensitive information likely to be derogatory to the dignity of the judiciary could be held in-camera. Ideally, if a judge under trial insisted on open proceedings, his request should be granted, he said.

In his petition, the chief justice had raised objections on the presence of Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar and Lahore High Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry in the SJC.

“I wish this statement was made before the SJC earlier so that the 13-member bench should not hear the case for the last two months,” Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, who is heading the bench, observed. “Still all is not gone and you can still think over if (there is) more to be done.”

Justice Ramday observed that open inquiry always ensured transparency in the proceedings.

Malik Qayyum said the council was a court of a special kind and it had the power at par with the Supreme Court. Therefore, its recommendations were treated as a full-fledged judgment of the court being a judicial tribunal.

He said the restraining orders of the chief justice passed by the president and the council on March 9 were valid. Therefore, he said, the appointment of the acting chief justice that day also had the constitutional cover.