ISLAMABAD - Chief Justice of Pakistan Tassaduq Hussain Jillani on Tuesday said it was clear from the Supreme Court’s July 31, 2009, verdict that the Constitution was violated by imposition of emergency on November 3, 2007.

A 14-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, was hearing former President Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf’s review petitions against the 31st July 2009 judgment and an application for a stay order against the Special Court proceedings for high treason.

The Supreme Court remarked if former President Pervez Musharraf apprehends that the July 31, 2009, and Tikka Iqbal judgments may cause prejudice to his case, the Special Court could be asked to decide the high treason case against him on its own merits without being influenced by these judgments.

Justice Tassaduq told Musharraf’s counsel they would pass an order that the Special Court shall decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by the 31st July 2009 and Tikka Iqbal judgments.

Ibrahim Satti, representing Musharraf, raised objections to paras 56 and 172 of the 31st July judgment, but demanded the whole judgment be declared void.

Ibrahim Satti argued the findings in the 31st July judgment would prejudice his case before a three-judge Special Court, constituted by the federal government for his trial under Article 6 of the Constitution, as the prosecution would rely on this judgment.

Justice Khilji Arif Hussain asked him whether the federal government should take action or not against the person who holds in abeyance or abrogates the Constitution. The counsel said there are a number of unconstitutional actions and every step is not subversion of the Constitution.

Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa told Satti that his client had filed the review petitions under Article 188 of the Constitution, but according to the petition, he didn’t accept the 1973 Constitution under which he took oath and remained President of Pakistan and COAS. Satti said it was a typing error and sought permission of the court to expunge that portion. The court allowed it with the warning to be careful.

He said the high treason case was initiated against Musharraf when he came back to the country after four and a half years. He alleged former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif have bias against his client.

Justice Khosa remarked the 14 judges of the apex court delivered the 31st July judgment and not just ex-CJP, adding “you want to brush aside all the judges with one stroke of the pen.”

The court condoned the issue of time bar on filing the review petitions by Musharraf as Satti argued the Supreme Court rules are regulatory and do not affect its jurisdiction and that there is no limitation for filing review on incorrect judgments.

The court turned down the request of the Lahore High Court Bar Association to become a party to the case. The LHCBA has filed a petition against the 31st July judgment, contending the PCO judges had been removed unconstitutionally and illegally. Justice Tassaduq told Barrister Ali Zafar, who appeared on behalf of LHCBA, that they would not hear the petition out of turn.

Satti argued when the federation and the then attorney general did not defend Musharraf in Sindh High Court Bar Association case the apex court issued a notice to him. The court questioned whether Pervez Musharraf remained ignorant of the judgment as everybody was aware of it because it was widely televised and published in the newspapers.

Justice Saqib Nisar raised a question whether Musharraf was unaware of the SHCBA proceedings and its consequences. Ibrahim Satti said it was in the knowledge of his client, but he couldn’t come to Pakistan as there were life threats to him. Justice Saqib said Musharraf, after his resignation, remained in Pakistan for quite some time.

Ibrahim Satti said his client has concern regarding observations in the 31st July judgment as no direction has been given for taking action for high treason. Justice Tassaduq remarked the court has specifically referred to Article 6 in the judgment, which deals with high treason.

Satti contended that after the 31st July judgment Maulvi Iqbal Haider filed a petition in the Sindh High Court against Musharraf, which talked about subversion of the Constitution. He said the SHC noted if the 14-member bench of the SC is silent about initiation of a case against Musharraf how it can do so.

Justice Khosa said the question whether the petitioner (Musharraf) had filed a review petition against the declaration of the SHC still holds the field. He said the SHC judgment had declared that subversion had taken place. Justice Saqib said the SHC judgment had not taken into account the 18th Amendment.

Earlier, during the proceedings, Justice Nasirul Mulk asked the Satti if he was seeking revision of the entire judgment or some part of it. He said in paras 56 and 172 there are findings against Musharraf. Justice Nasir said: “These are the only observations and the conclusion drawn and you want they should be expunged from the judgment.”

Satti stated that because of the observations in para 56 and 172 the federal government has initiated the high treason case against Musharraf. Justice Khilji said para 56 is about the armed forces’ oath, which mentions true allegiance and faithfulness to Pakistan and upholding the Constitution. He questioned whether being faithful to Pakistan is objectionable. Justice Saqib inquired if today somebody imposes emergency in the country it would be a clear case of high treason or not.

The hearing was adjourned till today (Wednesday). Satti wanted to prolong his arguments, but the chief justice directed him to complete it by 11am. After that Sharifud Din Pirzada would argue on the issue of biasness.