LAHORE, April 4: The Lahore High Court on Friday reserved judgment on an intra-court appeal, challenging the Legal Framework Order, when the petitioner failed to convince the court to hear his arguments in an extended session in rebuttal of the Attorney General’s contentions.

The division bench comprising Justice Tassaduq Husain Jillani and Raja Muhammad Sabir, after hearing the petitioner’s counter arguments for three hours during the morning session, had adjourned the hearing till 3pm because of Friday prayers.

Resuming the hearing, the LHC refused to grant him more than an hour to conclude his arguments when the petitioner expressed inability to wind up the arguments within this time. The judgment was reserved following a ‘heated’ session.

Earlier, the petitioner, Advocate A K Dogar, informed the court that his file containing important notes and references to the legal precedents had mistakenly been sent back to his office during the prayers break, and he would get it back within half an hour.

Justice Jillani expressed resentment over this disclosure, saying the petitioner was supposed to come prepared to the courtroom, and should not waste its time. “Court cannot sit idle for half an hour. All it can do is to allow you to conclude your arguments by 4pm,” Justice Jillani asked the petitioner.

The petitioner insisted that he would require more than an hour for completing his arguments, and the court should not impose a time limit on him. The court refused to grant him more time, saying it would reserve judgment without hearing him further in case he was not willing to avail himself of the given time.

When asked, Deputy Attorney General Sher Zaman Khan submitted that the petitioner had already been given ample opportunity to rebut the AG’s contentions, and it would be a futile exercise to grant him more time, especially when he had not come prepared to court. He alleged that the petitioner had been arguing without any substance, and had filed this appeal for publicity.

Mr Dogar reacted to the DAG’s remarks after which the court had to interfere. It said the petitioner should not shout in the courtroom and maintain its decorum. The bench members went to the retiring room to consult as to whether he should be allowed more time for arguments.

Later, court staff informed both the parties that judgment had been reserved, and the petitioner could file further arguments in writing in court by 10am today (Saturday).

During his arguments, the petitioner submitted that state was defending the re-enforcement of Article 58-2(B) through the LFO without any substance by declaring it a safety valve against military intervention and tool for keeping check on the use of power. This Article was required only in the presidential form of government where the president was the sole authority for exercizing power on behalf of the people, he added.

He said in parliamentary system of governance, this Article was not required for maintaining checks and balances on the elected representatives. He feared that risk of a military coup could not be ruled out despite the presence of this Article since this was ploy on part of President Gen Musharraf to get the entire powers.

Had this Article been required in our country, all the political parties would not have rejected it unanimously through the 13th amendment, he contended. He described the LFO as a ‘road block’ while refuting the AG’s arguments in which he called it a roadmap to democracy.

The petitioner argued that the objective resolution had laid down the basic structure of the country’s constitution with an emphasis on the teachings of Islam and Sunnah to be incorporated in it by an elected parliament. Any usurper could not be allowed to act as a legitimate source of law-making in the context of the objective resolution, he said.