ISLAMABAD, June 12: Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, heading a 13-member larger bench of the Supreme Court hearing petitions challenging a presidential reference against Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, on Tuesday hinted at devising a law by interpreting carefully the judge’s compulsory leave order under which superior court judges could be sent on forced leave.

“Where is the security of tenure of a judge if he is to be sent home just on a two liner notification by misusing Presidential Order 27 of 1970,” Justice Ramday observed. At the same time, Justice Ramday observed the court also had to keep in mind a situation where there was a genuine reason to purge a judge from the judiciary and proceedings on a reference against the judge were going on for months. What would be the position then, he asked.

The observation came when Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, fighting the case of the chief justice, insisted there was no concept of suspension of a judge even if a reference on misconduct had been moved against him in the Supreme Judicial Council.

The only disability a judge would face in case of institution of a reference against him was that he would not sit in meetings of the council to decide that particular case, although he could sit to decide such matters for others, the counsel said.

The Constitution, he maintained, was silent on the disability of a judge facing a reference on misconduct unless the council decided against him and sent its report to the president for his removal.

Justice Ramday observed that it was difficult to try one’s peers, adding that Justice Chaudhry was still the chief justice and “yet we are expected to do justice”. “It is not the CJ who is on trial, rather each one of us (all 13 judges) are on trial.”

Barrister Ahsan said that when the president in his interview on a TV channel had accepted that the chief justice was studying the reference till 5pm on March 9 at his Rawalpindi camp office, how could the reference be filed, the acting chief justice appointed and a notification of restraining the CJ issued.

The orders of restraining the CJ, he argued, had been issued by the president without any advice by the prime minister.

He said two members of the council had not been summoned from Lahore and Karachi by its chairman to attend a hurriedly called meeting of the council.

Barrister Ahsan narrated his experience when he topped the civil service examination in 1970, but opted not to join the civil service, his resignation was posted by Justice Ramday.

“Do not you think we did a favour to you,” Justice Ramday asked in a lighter vein. “Yes, because I could have retired as a secretary,” Barrister Ahsan replied.

“No, you might have been dismissed because of your acts,” Justice Ramday quipped.

Barrister Ahsan said the reference was also silent as it had not proved incapacity of the CJ when there should be a clear process for removing the judge.

Justice Ramday also asked journalists covering the proceedings to be careful while reporting because the matter had reached a delicate stage and said both the personalities involved (the president and the CJ) were honourable and the country needed both of them.