ISLAMABAD, June 1 Dr Abdul Basit, the main counsel for the federal government, excused himself on Tuesday from defending it against petitions challenging the 18th Amendment and said that the current environment of mistrust required him to step down.

Dr Basit, who launched a tirade against the judiciary on Monday soon after a notice was issued to him on professional misconduct for misleading a 17-judge full court on the question of ownership of objections challenging the composition of the bench, including the presence of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry in it, said that prudence demanded that he stopped appearing as the government counsel.

“I have the feeling after yesterday's episode that the federation will put all the blame on my shoulder for losing the case -- a possibility that looks quite obvious given the present atmosphere,” Dr Basit told Dawn.

He said he had informed Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq about his intentions after the conclusion of Tuesday's proceedings in the court.

“I have informed the attorney general in clear terms that he should find another lawyer to defend the government.”

During the proceedings, Dr Basit requested the bench to give him adequate time to submit his reply to the court notice. He accused some media personnel of snatching the notice from his hand.

Under relevant court rules, the counsel can lose his licence to appear before the apex court.

The court asked Mr Basit to submit the reply in two days. Meanwhile, Advocate-on-Record Mehmood A. Sheikh submitted an unqualified apology through Advocate Raja Abdur Rehman. He said he threw himself at the mercy of the court and assured it that he would be vigilant and careful in future.

The bench welcomed the gesture extended by chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms (PCCR) Raza Rabbani for appearing before it to answer different questions after he had been made a respondent in petitions challenging the 18th Amendment.

Advocate Wasim Sajjad, who is also representing the government, conveyed Mr Rabbani's message to the full court.

Objectives Resolution

Justice Saqib Nisar questioned interpretation of the 1973 Constitution on the touchstone of the Objectives Resolution when the founding fathers of the Constitution did not rely on the provision which was later made a substantive part of the Constitution with the incorporation of Article 2A by a military dictator (Ziaul Haq).

The chief justice said the independence of judiciary was not the issue; the real question was how to secure this goal and through which mode. He asked Advocate Mohammad Akram Sheikh, the counsel for petitioner Advocate Nadeem Ahmed, whether the appointment of judges through the judicial commission would affect the independence of judiciary.

The observations were made after Akram Sheikh cited a March 1949 speech of former prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan while presenting the Objectives Resolution that was later adopted by the then legislative assembly.

Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday asked the counsel how long did the committee constituted to consider the Objectives Resolution take in their deliberations that eventually culminated in evolving basic principles, ideals and ethos of the Constitution.

Advocate Sheikh said the committee never held closed-door meetings like the PCCR did and took less than two years to evolve basic consensus.

He argued that the identity of a country or the basic foundation could not be altered through any amendment. He said he feared that the future of a high court judge would be stigmatised and he would be deprived of the rights guaranteed under Article 209 of the Constitution if the parliamentary committee disapproved of his elevation to the Supreme Court.

The CJ asked the counsel to inform the bench about the wisdom and rationale behind not describing the judiciary as the third organ of the state under Article 7 of the Constitution.

Justice Javed Iqbal observed “We have to keep in mind about the doctrine of electoral mandate that provided political limitations as the present assembly which adopted the 18th Amendment cannot be equated with the constituent assembly and apparently seems cannot bring such drastic changes.”

But Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani said that the mode of appointment of judges in Britain had recently been changed with the introduction of the concept of judicial commission and asked the counsel if the judiciary had been consulted before introducing this change.