LAHORE, Feb 15: President Asif Ali Zardari may face difficulties in handling political affairs publicly as the Lahore High Court ruled on Friday that all public activities of the President were liable to scrutiny.

A five-judge full bench of the LHC, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, gave the ruling during the hearing of a petition seeking contempt of court proceedings against Asif Ali Zardari for not complying with its May 12, 2011, judgment declaring political activities by the President unconstitutional.

Justices Nasir Saeed Sheikh, Sheikh Najamul Hassan, Ijazul Ahsan and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah are other members of the bench.

Chief Justice Bandial observed that private activities of the President were not open to scrutiny, but his public activities could not be separated from his persona as the President of Pakistan.

The court issued notice to the President on a fresh application filed in the main petition questioning the alleged political activities by President Zardari during his recent visit to Lahore.

The court asked Wasim Sajjad, the counsel for the federation, to come up with specific instructions from the President whether he was willing to refrain from indulging in political activities in public.

During the proceedings, Attorney General Irfan Qadir appeared before the bench and said he wanted to advance his arguments on different points in the case. He said courts could commit errors and being a custodian of the Constitution he was duty-bound to assist them accurately as per the Constitution.

However, he said he was to leave for India in about two hours and sought time to make his submissions.

Chief Justice Bandial told the attorney general that the court would seek his assistance when required.

He observed that the recent political activities by the President in Lahore pointed out by the petitioner were a serious matter and the court could take notice of it.

Wasim Sajjad accused the media of misreporting activities of the President and said that after an undertaking submitted by him at the last hearing, no political meeting was held in the Presidency.

He argued that the President in his private capacity could meet political leaders and deal with political issues. His private activities could not be questioned by courts, he said.

The chief justice asked the counsel whether or not public meetings outside the President House will be reckoned as private activities of the President.

Advocate Sajjad said the general election was round the corner and the President was supposed to take part in political activities.

He said the case involved political issues and the court should keep itself away from the matter. No president could keep himself away from political controversies, he argued.

The counsel reiterated that the President was not head of any political party. He was co-chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party, which was not a political party as per Political Parties Order 2002. It was the PPP (Parliamentarians) which was registered with the Election Commission, he added.

In the light of the May 12, 2011, judgment, no contempt had been committed by the President, Wasim Sajjad observed.

Chief Justice Bandial said it was a weak argument that the PPP was not a registered political party.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan said the court was discussing the conduct of the President who, according to the Constitution, should be non-partisan. “Apparently, the President has stepped out of his constitutional role,” he said, adding that the counsel’s arguments suggested that the President could even canvass for a political party in elections.

Wasim Sajjad said if people had any objection to the President’s activities they would speak as much through the ballot.

The counsel expressed his inability to confirm if the President would refrain from indulging in political activities or holding meetings with political leaders in the public arena.

The court directed him to get instructions from the President on the matter and inform it about the outcome at the next hearing on March 8.

Earlier, Additional Attorney General Abdul Hayee Gillani and the petitioner’s counsel A.K Dogar were admonished by the chief justice for not observing decorum.