ISLAMABAD, May 3: The prosecution counsel on Thursday asked the Supreme Judicial Council hearing a reference against Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, to take notice of propagation of bias against some members of the council because maligning their conduct amounted to its contempt.

Dr Khalid Ranjha, leading the panel on behalf of the referring authority (President Pervez Musharraf), cited cases to establish that the SJC enjoyed the authority to take notice against its contempt if serious allegations were levelled against member judges of the council by questioning their conduct.

Soon after appearing before the SJC, the chief justice had raised preliminary objections against the filing of the reference against him and had levelled allegations of bias against three members of the SJC.

Arguments of the prosecution panel were continuing when further proceedings of the SJC were adjourned for next consecutive hearings on May 9 and 10.

Earlier, the chief justice, who was stopped at the entry gates for almost half an hour because the security was not letting in protesting lawyers along with him inside the court premises, appeared before the SJC for the eighth time along with his counsel to resume arguments assailing the power of the referring authority to suspend, restrain or send the chief justice or for that matter any other judge on forced leave.

Led by Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, the defence counsel had raised preliminary objections on the composition and competence of the SJC, besides challenging the conduct of in-camera proceedings of the council and the conduct of three member judges of the council.

On Thursday, the defence side again requested the council through an application to postpone its proceedings for two weeks since a five-member bench was commencing hearing from Monday to decide a large number of petitions, including that of the chief justice against his suspension and the filing of the reference before the council.

The defence side argued that the SJC had the right to defer its hearing till the time the Supreme Court decided petitions in which the composition of the council had been challenged. The SJC, however, again rejected the request.