ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan was informed Tuesday that the letter written by chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Admiral (retd) Fasih Bokhari to the president was purely a communication between two individuals and it was not intended to malign any institution of the country.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed heard the contempt of court notice against the chairman NAB.

The chief justice, in his remarks, stated the letter does not fall in the category of a conversation between two people as it has fallen in the hands of media and was made public.

He said the contents of the letter targeted an institution and not an individual which shouldn't been done by the person.

The CJ remarked that the letter was quoted in print and electronic media and was also discussed in programs which were shown in 132 countries, thus not a very good picture was conveyed to them.

Naveed Rasool Mirza, counsel for the chairman NAB, informed the court that the letter was written to the president in personal capacity of NAB as it was also not written on the official letter pad.

He made it clear that the letter was issued to print and electronic media after it was leaked to clear out some points twisted by a section of media.

Justice Saeed said once it is out of your hand, it is gone, while if the letter was written in personal capacity, it must have been kept confidential and should not have been made public.

The counsel for the chairman NAB again made it clear before the bench that the letter was purely a communication between the two people and did not mean to raise finger at anyone.

However, Justice Gulzar insisted that once a communication between two people was made public, one could not term it confidential.

He further stated that after the letter was sent to media, the communication was made public by the chairman himself and this was what the court was insisting to clear as to why this was done.

The CJ was of the view that the matter could have been ignored if against an individual but in this matter, a constitutional institute was targeted which shouldn't have been done.

Later, the court adjourned the hearing to Wednesday.