ISLAMABAD, July 16: The federal government on Monday withdrew the charge of judicial misconduct against Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. The once voluminous reference with annexure is now reduced to just allegations that the CJ abused his office for securing a government job for his son and privileges/protocol for him.

“I have instructions from President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz that paragraph 34 at page 14 as well as paragraph 36(g) at page 16 may be considered deleted,” senior advocate Sharifuddin Pirzada, representing the president, told a 13-member larger bench hearing the CJ’s petition.

The paragraph 34 deals with the charges of judicial conduct and accuses the chief justice of giving written orders at variance from the verbal orders earlier announced in the open court. It says two such cases have acquired particular notoriety. One of the cases even involves Rs55 million, the deleted paragraph states.

Again paragraph 36(g) accuses Justice Iftikhar of writing judgments contradictory to orders announced verbally in the open court.

Justice Tassadduq Jillani, a member of the bench, observed that the most serious allegation against any judge was always considered to be judicial misconduct which the government had withdrawn.

The decision to remove some portion from the reference was, however, opposed by CJ’s lead counsel Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan. He said this was not a comedy and that the entire reference should be withdrawn.

Barrister Ahsan was of the view that these paragraphs had been withdrawn because it also involved two judges sitting on the bench.

Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, the presiding judge, however, observed that the bench could not stop the government from withdrawing some paragraphs as it was doing it at its own risk.

Then the court should allow him to address a press conference to explain what was wrong and what was right, Barrister Ahsan requested.

At this, Justice Ramday recalled the speeches made on Sunday at the District Bar in Lahore and said that they themselves had decided the petition of the CJ.

“God willing, the Justice Iftikhar will be restored as the CJ,” Barrister Ahsan said.

At the outset, Attorney-General Makhdoom Ali Khan informed the court that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) in its report had assured that the inspection of chambers, courtrooms and residences of all Supreme Court judges had been completed, except that of Justice Ramday and Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, but would be done soon.

The Supreme Court had earlier directed the IB chief to file a sworn affidavit that these premises had been cleared of all bugging devices.

As regards to judges of four high courts, the AG sought more time to complete the exercise.

At this, Barrister Ahsan asked in a lighter vein to be sure that they had not dropped small devices because nowadays a device as small as grain of rice was enough to bug premises.

During the hearing, Advocate Malik Mohammad Qayyum read out the presidential reference to establish application of mind by the president before filing it to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).

“The President has acted in accordance with the Constitution and that paragraph 32 in the reference has been deleted by the president earlier by himself which also carried his initial. This also proves application of mind,” he said.

Citing the reference, Malik Qayyum said that son of the CJ had been given admission to the Bolan Medical College in Quetta out of merit, adding that he had been appointed as a demonstrator to the Institute of Public Health, Quetta, and later section officer in the ministry of health.

Malik Qayyum said that on the pressure of the CJ, the establishment secretary and the Prime Minister’s House had accommodated his son in the FIA, besides sending him abroad on training, although he was not a regular officer from the police in Pakistan.

The petitioner had also not denied these facts in his petition moved after one month of filing of the reference, he said.

Later, the AG argued that the SJC had the jurisdiction under Article 209 of the Constitution to commence proceedings against the CJ contending the word ‘judge’ also included the CJ, adding that no specific clause or qualification had been mentioned for the CJ.

He said that to hold that the CJ was an integral part of the SJC and the council was incomplete without the CJ, then such a finding would mean denying the right of the CJ to recuse himself in a reference against any judge or constitutional functionary to favour him or on the basis of animosity.

“It seems that the lawmakers while drafting the Constitution never envisaged a situation where the CJ will also be on trial. That is why they never suggested any clear provision in the Constitution,” Justice Ramday observed.

“It seems that we have to bend and stretch to give some answer through interpretation or by some constitutional convention,” he said.

The bench seemed also concern about the composition of the SJC in case the acting chief justice is to be appointed as the CJ was not inclined to preside over the council.

The AG, however, explained that the lawmakers always tried to envisage all kind of situations and if they wanted to make the CJ to be irreplaceable then they must have said so in clear terms.

“You have to interpret the Constitution in harmonious construction because the court is not permitted to say that some lacuna is in the Constitution or it has become redundant,” he said.