ISLAMABAD, July 20 A petitioner challenging the 18th Amendment surprised and angered the Supreme Court on Tuesday when he theatrically threw the Constitution away and held the Holy Quran up to show his preference.

“That's what I would do if I am drowning and advised to drop one (of the books to survive),” Shahid Orakzai said towards the end of his arguments and flung the copy of the Constitution to the floor.

Taken aback by the act, 17 judges on the full court took a few seconds to react. Justice Saqib Nisar was the first to admonish the journalist-turned-pro bono publico.

“You have insulted the court and owe it an apology,” the judge said and charged him with contempt on seeing him unrepentant. “On my own behalf I am issuing a notice of contempt to you,” Justice Nisar said.

The bench reminded the petitioner that the judges were under oath to protect the Constitution. Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry warned the petitioner that his conduct was not acceptable and he should immediately express regrets.

“How dare you drop the Constitution in the packed courtroom,” Justice Ghulam Rabbani said in reprimand.

When some lawyers tried to persuade Mr Orakzai to express remorse, Justice Raja Fayyaz asked them not to press him over the matter.

“We are affording you an opportunity to tender apology over your act or we will take action against you,” the chief justice warned again.

“I was only showing my commitment to the Holy Quran,” Mr Orakzai explained, but said he was sorry if someone's feelings were hurt.

When the bench retired for a half-an-hour tea break, the episode inside the courtroom remained the talking point among journalists and lawyers, with many coming up with all kind of gossips and conspiracy theories while others describing the act as disgusting.

When the court reassembled after the break, Mr Orakzai submitted a hastily hand-written one-page statement. He later told reporters that he had submitted a vote of thanks to the court for listening to him.

Advocate Hashmat Habib, the counsel for president of the Rawalpindi-Islamabad Union of Journalists (Dastoor) Shamshad Mangat, expressed dismay on behalf of journalists and said they were disappointed and hurt by Mr Orakzai's action. Challenging the 18th Amendment, Advocate Habib said that Article 2A (Objectives Resolution) was a grundnorm of the Constitution and parliament was not authorised to amend laws made by the Holy Quran and Sunnah.

He argued that the parliament's power to amend certain articles was limited to the extent of providing procedural mode for conduct of the affairs of the state.

Dr Aslam Khaki, also a petitioner, said that although parliament had powers to amend the Constitution, it could not restructure the document. He claimed that while bringing the 18th Amendment, no due process was exercised by parliament.

“The amendment is not only against the interest of people, but also against the political interest and thus mala fide.”

Dr Aslam was of the opinion that constitution of the judicial commission for appointment of judges had proved that irrationality prevailed during the time when the amendment was being proposed and, therefore, the entire exercise was against the fundamental rights of citizens.

“The Constitution of Pakistan is a blend of Islamic as well as democratic values, but Article 175-A (appointment of judges) has injured the very spirit and the pillar of the Constitution which revolves around the independence of judiciary,” he argued.

Senior lawyer Iftikhar Gillani, representing the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government, will defend the renaming of the province on Wednesday.