Approach the court for immunity: SC

The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the head of the state requires approaching the court for claiming immunity.
“One refused complying court order because the other one enjoyed immunity — if any head of the state required immunity, he should approach the court,” said Justice Asif Khosa sitting on a seven-member bench headed by Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk hearing the Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani contempt of court case here on Wednesday.
Counsel for the PM Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan argued that the president, as head of the state, enjoyed the immunity all across the world from civil and criminal cases. On this Justice Asif Khosa said that the immunity decision has to be taken by one who has it, but the matter under hearing was of different nature as in it someone else was telling that the other one enjoyed immunity.
While recalling what prime minister had said that on violation he would have to accept the death penalty, Justice Asif Khosa wondered if it was such that the violation of immunity was liable to death penalty.
Aitzaz Ahsan said that the perimeter of the Vienna Convention has been extended up to the head of states in court orders. While Justice Asif Khosa said that the head of the states’ immunity was nowhere mentioned in the Vienna Convention.
Meanwhile, Sarmad Jalal Usmani said that diplomats’ immunity was mentioned in the Vienna Convention. Aitzaz Ahsan said that he will prove to the court that the contempt of court law is invalid.
Aitzaz said that according to Article 10-A of the Constitution every citizen, including the premier, has a right to a fair trial. Ahsan said that granting him more time to carry forward his arguments was the Supreme Court’s “responsibility”.
Aitzaz also said that he wanted to raise more points to support his argument for a fair trial for his client.
Justice Nasirul Mulk told Aitzaz Ahsan that this was not the time for raising objections. Aitzaz said that when the court had initiated the hearing, the premier’s name was not in the case. The court had then issued a notice to him and held him in contempt, giving him no margin to defend himself properly.
Aitzaz Ahsan concluded his arguments on Article 10-A pertaining to a fair trial. He argued that the contempt of court law was invalid under Article 10-A.
Justice Gulzar remarked that the record of the parliamentary committee could tell about what was the objective of Article 10-A.
The PM’s counsel said that the Supreme Court could not hold a trial to implement its orders and this had to be done by a High Court. Justice Asif Khosa remarked that under Article 4, even those laws had to be accepted which were unfavourable.
Earlier, while talking to the media before the contempt proceedings, Aitzaz said he is not employing delaying tactics to give the case undue length. He noted that after the incorporation of new Article 10-A in the Constitution, the issue relating the hearing of suo motu cases by judges who issue the corresponding notice stands differently. He said the arguments on Article 10-A is taking more time as this is a new addition to the Constitution.