ISLAMABAD, July 30 The Supreme Court ignored on Thursday a plea to order initiation of high treason charges against former president Pervez Musharraf for proclaiming emergency on Nov 3, 2007, as army chief.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, who is heading a 14-judge bench hearing challenges to the imposition of emergency, observed that this was not the responsibility of the court. The court would rather take a simple route to decide cases before it, instead of derailing the system.

The bench made it clear that neither was it seized of any such prayer nor was it the proper forum. Besides, appeal against any ruling by a trial court holding Gen Musharraf guilty of treason would ultimately come to it.

Thursday's proceedings commenced an hour before schedule and overstretched till early evening to discuss the status of judgments delivered between the emergency and reinstatement of judges — on March 16 this year.

The discussion also focussed on the powers of the National Assembly to raise the strength of the Supreme Court to 29 from 17 judges through the Finance Act without amending the relevant act and involving the Senate.

SHC judges

Senior counsel Hamid Khan and Mohammad Akram Sheikh completed their arguments in the hearing of a petition filed by the Sindh High Court Bar Association against non-confirmation of two Sindh High Court judges — Justice Zafar Ahmed Khan Sherwani and Justice Abdul Rasheed Kalwar. Advocate Nadeem Ahmed, who sought a court declaration that PCO judges should not be considered judges, also concluded his arguments.

Attorney General Sardar Latif Khan Khosa will present the government's point of view on Friday, after which a short-order is expected.

Hamid Khan suggested initiation of a high treason case against Pervez Musharraf, recalling that the Supreme Court in the Asma Jillani case had held late Gen (retd) Yahya Khan as usurper, but no action was suggested against him.

Akram Sheikh requested the court to forward the matter concerning illegal actions taken by Gen Musharraf to the Chief of the Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, so that the army itself inquired, prosecuted and punished him under the Army Act, 1952, for abrogating the Constitution.

Such an exercise, he said, would spare the court from insinuations of bias.

The bench observed that the PCO judges delivered judgments that settled disputes and led to hangings and acquittals.

“These judges also took many administrative decisions which were also implemented,” the chief justice said.

While deciding the 1998 Malik Asad Ali case, he reminded, this court had invoked the “doctrine of de facto” to determine the status of the judgments of Justice Sajjad Ali Shah after his appointment as the chief justice was declared illegal.

The principle of de facto doctrine was not applicable here, Hamid Khan argued, adding that the decisions rendered by these judges on routine or general issues should be condoned, but not the judgments on constitutional matters.

“You should guide us to a safer path as we do not believe in destroying institutions because we are dealing with the problem of thousands and thousands of litigants and cannot decide with our eyes shut. We have to run the system together,” the chief justice observed.

“Perhaps the answer lies with the parliament,” Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja quipped. “The difficulty we are facing is curable but assuming such extra-ordinary power already available with parliament will mean derogating ourselves.”

Hamid Khan emphasised that PCO judges should not be regarded as “de facto” judges because their appointments also had a reference of the PCO and the oath of office order issued by Gen Musharraf. Their appointment under the PCO would become void if these instruments issued by Gen Musharraf were declared illegal by the apex court, he added.

“I do not consider judgments by PCO judges as judgments but void and nullity in law,” he said, adding that all appointments after Nov 3, 2007, were without consultation with the de jure chief justice and, therefore, liable to be declared illegal.

Describing the proceedings in the Tikka Iqbal case under former chief justice Abdul Hameed Dogar as a hearing before a tribunal, the counsel said that hearing was without legal basis, mala fide and rendered by “biased persons”.

Citing newspaper reports, Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday said he had a vague recollection that the gentleman (Tikka Iqbal) was also involved in political negotiations on behalf of Gen Musharraf before Nov 3, 2007.