ISLAMABAD: After a dispute with the Lahore High Court (LHC), the Federal Ombudsperson Yasmin Abbasi has shown mistrust for the Chief Justice of Pakistan Anwar Zaheer Jamali for hearing the suo motu case against her and for issuing an arrest warrant to the incumbent chief justice of the Lahore High Court. The Chief Justice of Pakistan on May 11 took suo moto action under Article 184(3) of the constitution on the press clipping of a newspaper containing the story captioned as “Ombudsperson issues warrant for judge a day after apology.” According to the news reports the Federal Ombudsperson for Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace, Yasmin Abbasi, had issued a warrant for the arrest of the LHC serving Chief Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, one day after she tendered an unconditional apology to the judge, for her “contemptuous” conduct. However, Yasmin Abbasi appeared before the bench when a two-judge bench headed by chief justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali on Tuesday resumed the hearing of the suo moto notice. She argued before the bench to fix the case in another bench as she had reservations about the Chief Justice of Pakistan pertaining to her case. However, the top court while accepting the plea of the federal ombudsperson ordered to fix the case before another bench wherein the chief justice will not be heading the bench. The dispute between the LHC and federal ombudsperson unearthed after Advocate Sumera Fazil Khan filed an application against Advocate Salim Javed Baig and his son Advocate Khurram baig before the Federal Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace. The female lawyer through her counsel, Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, filed an appeal under Article 185(3) in the top court, requesting to set aside the judgment of the LHC dated April 5, 2016, wherein the court not only aggrieved the female lawyer but also decided to put up the matter before the Supreme Judicial Council so that it may be treated as a reference against the federal ombudsperson for her removal. The petition stated that the judgment of the LHC was liable to be set aside because the judgment was passed without the interpretation of the constitution despite the fact that the Attorney General for Pakistan was issued a notice for the purpose but he did not appear. The petition further contended that the high court passed the judgment merely on the question of the federal ombudsman sitting in the federal capital had no jurisdiction in respect of a cause which happened in Punjab. “Though, factually it (federal ombudsman) was in all parts of the country but the high court inspite of the constitutional bar and specific objections taken by the petitioner (Sumera) did not decide its own jurisdiction regarding the competence of the writ petition under Article 199 (1) before LHC,” the petition stated. It is the duty of high court to interpret and apply the constitution and in this respect the Article 199 (1) and its clauses, the petition said. The petition further contended that the LHC had no jurisdiction in the matter. The “Special law for Federal Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010 is special in nature and requires speedy disposal so it was not made a subject for the jurisdiction of other courts and the only remedy provided was a representation to the President of Pakistan,” contended the petition. The petition also prayed before the court to set aside the judgment of the LHC as it was against facts and laws.