ISLAMABAD: The cha­l­l­enge to amendments to the accountability law by former prime minister Imran Khan “is not a case that deserves to be answ­ered”, the government’s lawyer told the Supreme Court on Tuesday, and argued that the courts should find reasons to reconcile the law with the Constitution instead of just striking it down.

A three-member Sup­reme Court bench, led by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, took up the petition filed by the PTI chairman against the amendments introduced by the current government last year.

Senior counsel Makh­doom Ali Khan, representing the federal governm­ent, began his argument dur­ing a Tuesday hearing. “If I may be more courageous enough to say, there is no case to answer,” he argued.

He said that when the courts looked at a statute whose constitutionality was being challenged before it, they should put the law next to the Constitution, and if there was any disconnect, reconcile it with the Constitution instead of just striking it down.

The counsel argued that when a law was challenged, the court shifted the entire burden on the petitioner to justify that the law or any amendment was uncons­titutional and illegal.

Under Article 203(D) of the Constitution, it is only the Federal Shariat Court that, according to the counsel, could declare any statute repugnant to the injunctions of Islam after examining the same, but this power of declaring any law repugnant could not even be exercised explicitly by the Supreme Court or the high court as defined by Article 203(G).

The judiciary didn’t have any judicial power in this respect, the counsel said, adding that none of the interpretative tools worked here and therefore none of the statute could be severed.

During the hearing, Justice Bandial wondered how many members of the parliament passed the present amendments to the NAB law. To this, the counsel stated that he would inform the court about the exact number on Wednesday (today).

When the counsel compared the oath of office of the parlia­mentarians with the judges, Justice Ijazul Ahsan reminded that the oath of the member demand to exercise his functions in accordance with the Constitution but also in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, solidarity, well-being and prosperity of Pakistan. “When a law is enacted that is not in the interest of the people of Pakistan, will it not violate the oath,” Justice Ahsan wondered.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, however, observed that the absence of words in the oath of the judges, like the well-being and prosperity of the people, was because when the court decided a case, it did not consider the prosperity of the people rather decided in accordance with the constitution.

Justice Bandial observed that the court interpreted the law in a way that it should not serve the private interest by overriding the interest of the people.

However, the counsel emphasised that the courts interfered only when the parliament or the executive had crossed red lines, “but when there is an amber light, the judiciary looks the other way”. The case will again be taken up today.

Published in Dawn, January 11th, 2023