ISLAMABAD, Nov 8: A citizen on Monday petitioned the Supreme Court to declare the 'President to Hold Another Office Bill 2004' as against the Constitution and direct President Pervez Musharraf to withhold his assent to the bill recently passed by both houses of parliament.

Mr Shahid Orakzai, the petitioner, said the matter was urgent as seven of the 30 days that the president had under Article 75 of the Constitution to choose his course of action (whether or not to give his assent) had already passed.

According to the petitioner, an attempt had been made through the bill to distort the highest office of the state. He contended that the president's office was the top-most product of the right of association under Article 17 of the Constitution and any distortion of this office would render this right counter-productive.

He also sought a declaration from the Supreme Court to hold the enactment as 'violative' of Article 25 (equality of citizens) of the Constitution.

The bill was in direct conflict with Article 43 (conditions of the president's office) of the Constitution as evident from the first draft in which Law Minister Wasi Zafar had described both the offices held by the president as 'office of profit', the petitioner said.

Article 43 does not allow the president to hold "any office of profit in the service of Pakistan". The lawmakers can also not declare any office of profit as a non-profit office, he said.

The petitioner also asked the court to define the term 'office of profit' because a majority of the members of parliament, the ultimate legislative authority in Pakistan, was unable to understand constitutional terminologies, he claimed.

Despite an amendment by the Standing Committee of the National Assembly on Law, Justice and Human Rights, the preamble of the bill still mentions the wordings "another office of profit" - not once, but twice, he said.

He added that the Supreme Court did not bar a private citizen from invoking the jurisdiction of the court by filing a case of public importance. "Article 8 (laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights to be void) clearly prevents the making of any law that takes away or abridges the fundamental rights," he said.

He asked the court to decide whether parliament, by a simple majority, could declare the office of profit in the service of Pakistan as otherwise and whether the office of the chief of army staff was an office of profit?