A Lahore High Court (LHC) division bench on Saturday referred an intra-court appeal, challenging single bench orders for Hamza Shehbaz oath taking, to the LHC chief Justice with a request to form a larger bench for its hearing. The bench noted that many important law points had been raised through the appeal, therefore, it was necessary to form a larger bench for hearing. The court also expunged paragraph 9 of single bench orders. Justice Sajid Mehmood Sethi and Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh heard the appeal filed by several MPAs of PTI. On Friday, a single LHC bench had asked Speaker National Assembly to administer oath to newly elected Punjab Chief Minister Hamza Shehbaz while allowing third petition filed for the purpose. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) challenged on Saturday the Lahore High Court (LHC) single bench’s decision directing the National Assembly speaker to administer oath to Punjab chief minister-elect Hamza Shahbaz Sharif. The party deemed the decision “beyond the facts of the case” and a “violation of several articles of the Constitution”. At least 17 petitioners, including PTI MPA Subtain Khan, filed the appeal in the LHC though their advocate, Azhar Siddique. The petitioners contended that “the high court’s single bench in the absence of any pleadings by any single party to be arrayed as respondents in the writ petition, on the very first day, has reserved judgement”. The PTI appellants stated that such conduct was unprecedented and in sheer deviation from the Constitution. “These proceedings have created havoc and turmoil,” they argued as a third writ petition was filed on the same cause of action – which has already been decided upon twice in earlier writ petitions. The petitioners argued that the judicial proceedings of the single bench comprised “rude remarks against constitutional officers such as the Governor of Punjab and the President of Pakistan in the reserved judgment.” “The haste and the procedure manifest an absence of justice,” they maintained, adding that the matter must be heard by a larger bench comprising not less than seven judges. The appellants stated that the impugned order passed by the single bench was not “based on facts” and claimed it was in violation of Articles 48, 87, 133, 187, 190, 204, 248 and 255 of the Constitution. “Article 248 of the Constitution provides protection to the president, provincial governors, the prime minister, federal ministers, ministers of state, chief ministers and provincial ministers. It states that the aforementioned shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions,” the petition maintained.