ISLAMABAD, Jan 14: The Supreme Court summoned on Monday Attorney General Irfan Qadir and postponed proceedings in a contempt petition against the president and the prime minister for not implementing the Dec 21 order to appoint two Islamabad High Court judges.

A four-judge special bench headed by Justice Khilji Arif Hussain adjourned the case after the attorney general accepted the notice verbally and sought some time to come prepared on the next hearing.

Moved by Advocate Akram Sheikh on behalf of Advocate Nadeem Ahmed, the petition has asked the court to initiate contempt proceedings against President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, Law Minister Farooq H. Naek and Law Secretary Yasmin Abbasey for wilful disobedience by not issuing notifications to appoint Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui as a regular judge and Justice Noorul Haq N. Qureshi as additional judge for six months in the IHC.

On Dec 21, a five-judge Supreme Court bench had asked the president to appoint the two judges in line with the Sept 22 recommendation of the judicial commission, which was also approved by the parliamentary committee.

But instead of handing down its opinion on the presidential reference the court issued a direction on a petition also moved by Mr Nadeem to the competent authority asking to notify the appointment of the two judges.

On Monday, the apex court adjourned the case for Jan 18 when the AG invited the attention of the court about a review petition filed by the federal government against the Dec 21 order in addition to a request for suspending the order till the time the court issues a detailed opinion on the presidential reference against the recommendation of the judicial commission.

Akram Sheikh argued that the matter should not simply be left on the grace of the government to execute the Dec 21 short order because it had left no ambiguity for implementation.

Referring to the Islamic jurisprudence, the counsel argued that no-one, not even the government of the day, could deviate from the judgment rendered by a qazi.

When Justice Khilji asked who was claiming that the government was not implementing the order, the counsel replied that there was no ambiguity in the order, but the government was arguing that the presence of a member in the judicial commission who was not its real member vitiated the commission’s recommendations.

The petitioner requested the court to also initiate proceedings against the respondents under Article 6 of the Constitution read with provisions of the high treason punishment Act, 1973.

Although the president under Article 248(2) of the Constitution enjoys limited immunity from criminal prosecution, contempt proceedings can be initiated against him since contempt proceedings in stricto senso are not proceedings of criminal nature, the petitioner pleaded.

“Since the respondents are not implementing the orders with malicious intent, therefore, impleading him as a respondent is mandatory in terms of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the 1990 Aman Ullah Khan case.”

The petitioner contended that the conduct of respondents required issuance of show-cause notices asking them why action should not be taken against them for causing obstruction to justice and wilfully flouting the court’s judgment and the constitutional process for more than two months after unanimous approval by the parliamentary committee.