ISLAMABAD, July 5: Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, who is heading a 13-member larger bench hearing a petition by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry challenging the filing of presidential reference against him, on Thursday hinted that the verdict, whenever came, would be historic.

“If it comes, the judgment will be historical,” Justice Ramday observed, but hastened to add that it (judgment) would definitely come.

The observation was made when federal government’s counsel Malik Mohammad Qayyum said the burden on this bench was immense.

“No, we are not in a habit of carrying so much burden,” Justice M. Javed Buttar observed in a lighter vein, adding that the judgment would not run through 500 or 1,000 pages rather “we would cut it short”.

Justice Ramday compared the role of judiciary with that of doctors who prescribed and removed diseases from human bodies after diagnosis. But, he regretted that while in the case of doctors patients lay down happily to open their bodies for operation, the judiciary faced resistance and criticism when it did something for collective good of the nation.

“The judiciary should be taken in the same spirit by everybody, instead of considering the courts as adversary,” Justice Ramday said.

“As a nation, this is in our nature not to respect institutions,” Malik Qayyum said, but added that the problem “we are facing is that when an institution, which has the authority to scrutinise things, tried to perform its duty, the executive always rebels”.

He cited the tenure of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif when the entire executive had been pitted against former chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah under the weight of heavy mandate.

Justice Chaudhry Ijaz quoted a verse from Maulana Room (Hazrat Jalaluddin Rumi) to say that one could do justice only after negating his inner-self by deeply involving himself in the love of God. The judge also cited Surah Rehman and said the concept of trichotomy of power had come from these holy verses.

Malik Qayyum argued that the opinion of the president was always based on the advice of the prime minister and emphasised that the decision of the prime minister and the cabinet was in fact the decision of the president and, therefore, no responsibility could be attributed to him.

The advice of the prime minister for filing the reference against superior court judges did not need any endorsement or approval from the cabinet, he argued.

A reference to Lal Masjid was made during the hearing, with Justice Ramday observing that may God protect everybody as the last two days had been very depressing.

Malik Qayyum said that the president was not responsible for the acts taken in his name. “The president can send any matter to the cabinet for reconsideration if he is not satisfied, but if the decision is not changed then the president is bound to act upon it.”

He was of the view that SJC’s recommendations were binding on the president and he had no option to reject or ignore these. “If we accept the arguments from the petitioner’s side which is pleading contrary point of view then it will be a disaster,” he said.

“It is the council which has to decide about the removal of a judge and the president has no role to play in this regard. The material on which the reference has been made and was before the SJC can be summoned by the full court for examination,” he said.