ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court dismissed on Wednesday Justice (retd) Abdul Hameed Dogar’s challenge to objections raised by the registrar’s office to his two petitions questioning the incumbency of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and seeking reversal of the July 31 judgment holding his incumbency as unconstitutional.

The order was issued by Justice Ghulam Rabbani who had reserved the judgment on Tuesday after hearing Advocate Naeem Bokhari, the counsel for Justice Hameed Dogar, in his chamber.

However, a source close to the former chief justice told Dawn that Mr Dogar had discussed the matter with his counsel and decided to challenge the order. In that event, the case will be placed before a three-judge bench under relevant rules of the Supreme Court.

‘Justice Rabbani simply told us in his chamber that he was dismissing the two challenges detailed reasoning of which will be released in a few days,’ Advocate Ijaz Janjua, the counsel assisting Naeem Bukhari, told Dawn.

Justice Dogar had challenged restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and other superior courts judges through an executive order and sought a review of the July 31 verdict of the apex court declaring proclamation of emergency and actions taken under it as unconstitutional and illegal.

Talking to reporters on Tuesday, Advocate Bukhari had said that the registrar’s office was not competent to raise technical objections to Justice Dogar’s petitions.

He said that a judge should not be a judge in his own cause, but Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry had not only authored the July 31 judgment but also mentioned his name 29 times in the verdict. And while hearing the matter, the bench had issued a notice to former president Pervez Musharraf but not to Justice Dogar although his appointment as the chief justice had been declared as illegal, he added.

The registrar’s office had cited Order XVII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 as reasons for not entertaining the petition against the incumbent chief justice since it was against the sitting judges who enjoyed indemnity under the Judicial Officer Protection Act, 1850, and for it being ‘scandalous’.

Another objection was that no matter of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution was involved and, therefore, it did not fall within the ambit of Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

Besides, the July 31 verdict by the 14-judge bench in which elevation of Justice Dogar as chief justice was held to be unconstitutional has already been maintained in the review petitions and thus attained finality.

Since the petitioner (Justice Dogar) was filing collateral proceedings and wanted to join the proceedings indirectly, the July 31 judgment could not be challenged, the list of objections said, adding that Justice Dogar also enjoyed no locus standi to file the petition.

Referring to the petition seeking review of the July 31 verdict, the objection said the prayer clause in the petition was not properly drawn. Besides, the petitioner seemed not interested in filing the petitions.

Moreover, scandalous and contemptuous language had been used against the incumbent chief justice and judges of the Supreme Court and, therefore, the petition was not entertainable, it added.