Updated on
Summary Plea seeks order to stop CJP from functioning till disposal of Arsalan case.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan of Supreme Court reserved his judgement on the petition filed by a woman lawyer against Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad ChaudhryAs per details, the SC judge reserved final verdict on an appeal against objections put by the Registrar Office on a constitutional petition, seeking a judicial order to stop the Chief Justice of Pakistan from functioning till final disposal of Arsalan Iftikhar-Malik Riaz case.Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan heard contentions of Afzala Qureshi advocate in his chamber against order of Deputy Registrar, SC Lahore Registry Branch, Lahore here on 4 October, 2012.The petitioner pleaded that the case of Dr Arslan Iftikhar in which Arsalan was allegedly involved millions of rupees corruption and, therefore, questions on constitutional and legal provisions are directly being raised against the Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.Afzala Qureshi advocate in her petition said that the Chief Justice might have self-interest in Dr Arsalan Iftikhar case and, therefore, deliberately the Chief Justice took a suo motu action on Arsalan case. The petitioner further pleaded that the Chief Justice, while taking suo motu action himself on his son’s case (Dr. Arsalan Iftikhar case) has dishonored the dignity of the Supreme Court.The petitioner moreover pleaded that the Arsalan case was a criminal matter between two persons and the Supreme Court being the apex court of the country should avoid the case.While referring to the code of conduct of the Supreme Judicial Council under notification of November 2, 2009 and the oaths of judges, she raised the questions that according to the Article 178 of the Constitution 1973 it is not compulsory for the judges of the apex court to implement the code of conduct of the Judicial Council as an utmost duty.Further, Petitioner Afzala Qureshi advocate pleaded that there was no provision to empower even the registrar to return any case filed with it.She requested that the impugned order of the Deputy Registrar might be set aside and her constitutional petition should be ordered to be fixed for regular hearing.
