Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on Thursday said that judiciary had always played its role for smooth functioning of the parliament. He made this statement while heading a bench that was looking into the constitutionality of the recent amendments to the contempt of court law by the government. The five-judge bench was presented with the parliamentary record of the debate over the said amendment. The bench comprising of Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Shakirullah Jan, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain, Justice Jawad S Khawaja and Justice Tassadduq Hussain Jilani resumed the hearing of 27 various identical petitions challenging the Contempt of Court Law 2012. “Judges have always played their role in smooth functioning of the parliament. Who says that the parliament is not being allowed to function? The judges have to make decisions irrespective of the fact what was going outside the court,” remarked the chief justice.
Earlier, secretary National Assembly submitted record of the parliamentary debate before the bench. Submitting arguments, one of the petitioners, Sheikh Ahsanuddin, who is also president of the Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) of Rawalpindi Bench, contended that all those parliamentarians who favoured the bill deviated from their oath. He said all the legislation was completed before June 27 since attorney general was given deadline to submit government’s reply in writing a letter to Swiss officials, adding that the new law had been enacted to protect the new prime minister from disqualification.
Sheikh said the parliament had passed the new contempt of court law in an indecent haste and it did not have the authority to curtail the judiciary’s freedom.
Sheikh also read out the record of the parliamentary debate over the law before the bench. The court observed that it was necessary to review the debate record as the question of timing of the passage of the law was raised. However, after hearing the debate, Justice Jawad S Khawaja remarked that parliamentary proceedings were protected under Article 69 of the constitution and could not be challenged in the court; however, he added, the court could review the debate held in the parliament. He also inquired into the rationale behind the drafting of the law, adding that the parliamentary debate could reveal the rationale behind this legislation.
The bench later adjourned the hearing till today (Friday).