ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court made it clear on Wednesday that it had a duty to interfere in the domain of others if any institution or organisation became dysfunctional.

“Each organisation and institution has its own function to perform, but if it becomes dysfunctional, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to interfere,” Chief Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani said while heading a 14-judge full court hearing a review petition filed by former president Pervez Musharraf against the landmark July 31, 2009, verdict denouncing the Nov 3, 2007, proclamation of emergency.

The observation came when Gen Musharraf’s counsel Mohammad Ibrahim Satti argued that a treason trial against his client had been initiated to comply with the court’s verdict. He said Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had stated that he would render himself in contempt if he failed to initiate the case. Thus the court had become a complainant in the trial and its name was being misused, the counsel contended. He cited a number of cases to prove his point that the courts had no business to interfere in others’ domain.

When the counsel criticised the Nov 3, 2007, restraining order issued by a seven-judge bench headed by former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, moments after the proclamation of emergency, Justice Nasirul Mulk, who was also a signatory to that order, explained for the first time that retired Justice Rana Bhagwandas had signed the document the same day and he had also been detained immediately in the judges’ enclave.

Justice Saqib Nisar said Justice Bhagwandas had called him in Lahore at around 6.15pm to inform him about the decision taken by the seven judges.

Advocate Satti had claimed that Justice Bhagwandas had signed the order on Nov 5 and the presence of retired Justice Ghulam Rabbani was also doubtful.

He claimed that former attorney general Muneer A. Malik had once said that the order had not been signed till 7pm.

“Muneer was not there,” retorted Justice Mulk.

Senior counsel Sharifuddin Pirzada had the hardest time of his life when his arguments to establish that Justice Chaudhry harboured bias against Gen Musharraf apparently cut no ice with the court.

Whatever case the counsel cited to prove his point was met with an observation neutralising the effect of the precedence he quoted to emphasise the element of bias affecting the due process of law.

Mr Pirzada tried to establish that Justice Chaudhry had influenced the 13 other judges on the bench which pronounced the July 31 judgement since he was hostile against the retired general who had initiated a reference of misuse of authority and disqualified him. Therefore, the verdict had been vitiated, the counsel said.

But the court repeatedly asked him to provide material evidence to prove the bias.

It said the counsel was talking about the alleged bias of one member, but he should cite a case where the same could be proved against all the members of the 14-judge court.

Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja explained that as a judge “it is our training and we are accustomed to facing questions against our integrity, but we always dispassionately deal with cases”.

In the SGS case involving former president Asif Zardari, material had been presented in the shape of diplomatic passports and telephonic conversation between a judge and a government functionary to prove the element of bias, he said.

Justice Khosa cited the 1993 Nawaz Sharif case in which the Supreme Court, while restoring his government, had held that likes and dislikes or ill-will became irrelevant in the performance of constitutional duties and therefore it should not be inferred that a deadlock would arise between the presidency and the prime minister.

“But what happened, both (the then president and prime minister) had to go and later former prime minister Benazir Bhutto alleged that it was ‘glitter’ that had helped the restoration of the Sharif government,” Mr Pirzada recalled, adding that this illustration had no application in the current matter.

“There is only one argument in your support that other judges acted under the influence of the elder as is cited in criminal cases,” Justice Khosa said.

Mr Pirzada will complete his arguments on Thursday, during which he is expected to speak about view of the Quaid-i-Azam about the Supreme Court and constitutional court.