KARACHI, March 9: The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was not removable from office, former law minister and senior advocate Iqbal Haider said here on Friday.

Commenting on the occurrences in Islamabad on Friday in an interview, he said it was nothing short of an assault on the judiciary. About the office of chief justice, he said Article 209 provided for all eventualities, including a reference against a high court chief justice or senior-most judges of the Supreme Court who were members of the Supreme Judicial Council.

“However, it does not discuss any contingency created by a presidential reference against the chief justice of the Supreme Court. That means that Article 209 does not envisage a reference against the CJ.”

Mr Haider, who is Secretary-General of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, said in his capacity as a senior lawyer that Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry should not have allowed the withdrawal of a contempt petition against Advocate Naeem Bokhari, who had posted an email containing serious allegations against the CJ.

Justice Iftikhar had issued notices on the petition, which was moved by Advocate Maulvi Iqbal Haider of Awami Himayat Tehrik.

The petition, the former minister said, had come up before a five-member bench headed by the chief justice on March 5, when he had been also present in Courtroom 1 at the principal seat. Without assigning any reason, the petitioner, Maulvi Iqbal Haider, sought to withdraw the petition against Advocate Bokhari and ‘surprisingly’ the chief justice allowed him to withdraw the petition.

Mr Haider said the contempt petition afforded the CJ to vindicate his position vis-à-vis the allegations levelled against him. Justice Iftikhar should have constituted a bench without himself as its member. The bench should have heard the petition thoroughly and cleared the name of the chief justice if the allegations were false. He should have allowed judicial scrutiny of the allegations made against him by Advocate Bokhari.

Instead, the CJ chose to entertain a petition questioning allegations against him and suddenly allowed its withdrawal. If the allegations had any substance, the best course for the CJ was to resign.

Mr Haider said he had also been intrigued by non-publication of any news report in respect of the contempt petition and its withdrawal.

Was there an embargo and, if so, who imposed it on the media? The incident, however, does not justify the CJ’s ouster in `most dishonourable and disgraceful manner.’

The manner in which the CJ has been removed had tarnished the image of the judiciary and of the country, he said.