ISLAMABAD, June 1: Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, heading a 13-member larger bench of the Supreme Court hearing identical petitions challenging the filing of a reference against the chief justice, on Friday again stressed the need for creating an appellate forum to review rulings of the Supreme Judicial Council.

“We should seriously consider providing a forum of right to appeal,” Justice Ramday said when Advocate Rasheed A. Rizvi, appearing on behalf of the Sindh High Court Bar, said Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry should not be put to the rigours of a ‘trial’ when the very initiation of the reference was illegal and based on mala fide.

“The powers vested in the president to send a reference against superior court judges under Article 209 of the Constitution have been abused grossly,” the counsel said.

Last week when Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan made a similar point, Justice Ramday suggested that a mechanism was needed to open the alley in which a superior judge would found himself after his removal by the SJC.

On Friday, seven counsel representing different petitioners appeared before the court to stress that their petitions were competent to be heard and decided.Barrister Zafarullah Khan asserted that it was the prerogative of superior courts under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to interpret constitutional provisions and conventions. But while interpreting these provisions, the approach of the Supreme Court should be dynamic and inclined towards problem-solving and conducive to independence of the judiciary, he said.

He stressed that the SJC was an inquiry committee appointed under the Constitution with a quasi-judicial power and, therefore, not a court. He added that the ouster clause under Article 211 of the Constitution (bar of jurisdiction) should not be accepted as courts had always rebelled against such ousters.

Senior Advocate Akram Sheikh, representing former Security Exchange Commission of Pakistan chairman Dr Tariq Hassan, submitted his written formulations suggesting that the president by acting on the advice of the prime minister before forming an opinion to submit the reference had abdicated his constitutional function and, therefore, his opinion was without jurisdiction.

It was also evident from contents of the reference, the counsel contended, that the president was ignorant of provisions of the code of conduct for judges because no reference to that effect had been mentioned in the reference against the chief justice.

Advocate Shoaib Shaheen argued that sending the chief justice on forced leave on March 9, 2007, was illegal because there was no such provision in the Constitution.

Barrister Zafarullah Khan of the Watan Party, who came to prominence after the Pakistan Steel Mills case, emphasised that if the Supreme Court failed to stand up in this hour of need, the entire nation “would fail”.

He said his petition was competent since it involved breach of fundamental rights and was of great public importance.

Ahmed Awais, representing the Lahore Bar Association, said the president did not enjoy constitutional immunity after putting the chief justice under wrongful confinement on March 9 and, then, under virtual house arrest.

Advocate Ghani Chaudhry said Gen Pervez Musharraf had not sent the reference to the SJC against the chief justice as the president but as head of the army.