Daily Times

The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned hearing till today (Wednesday), on petition filed by the PTI chairman Imran Khan against amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law.

A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial heard the petition.

During the course of proceedings, federal government’s lawyer Makhdom Ali Khan argued that there was no important points in the petitions to be answered. A law could only be terminated when there was no other option, he said. He said that the institutions including parliament, executive and judiciary should work in their defined limits. The judiciary was not given powers in the constitution to terminate the law, he added. The Supreme Court had granted this authority to the judiciary through a judgment, he said, adding that this authority was also conditional.

Makhdom Ali Khan said that the legislation was also challenged under ‘Shariah’ but the top court could not evaluate it under ‘Shariah’ rules as the only forum for this was Federal Shariat Court.

The lawyer said that the legislation was the domain of the parliament and judiciary could not interfere into it. The top court, in its judgments, had also declared that court could not raise question on the intention of the house.

Since 1947 the burden of proof was always on the shoulders of complainants, he said.

The chief justice questioned that what should be the strength of members in the house at the time of voting. How many members of the parliament were in attendance at the time of NAB amendments, he asked.

The lawyer said that no law was terminated till this day for not being approved by the majority of members. The chief justice said that it was mere a question.

The lawyer said that members Parliament took oaths for taking all decision under the constitution. Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked that it was also in their oaths that they would take decision for development and prosperity of the country. Whether the legislation against country’s development would not be violation of oath, he asked.

Makhdom Ali Khan said that no court could determine the intention of members’ Parliament. The judges were bound to take decisions under the law. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that it was the difference between the oath of judges and members as the judges took oaths for taking decision as per the law.

The lawyer said that the legislation introduced by the members was considered for the development of the country. The US Supreme Court’s judge had remarked that the house had right of every legislation, he said. The American court had declared that it would assist the public if it wanted to go to towards the hell with its representatives.

The advocate said that the court had no authority even on any foolish legislation by the house.

After this, the court adjourned further hearing of the case.