ISLAMABAD Many including top legal minds, who observed the Monday proceedings of the Supreme Court, opine what Federations counsel Dr Basit and Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq did in the apex court was part of a pre-conceived, calculated move to malign the image of the top judiciary of the country and its Chief Justice, since AG surprisingly defended the objection raised against the CJ. When inquired by the court, Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq said the objection raised by the federation on the constitution of apex court bench was not up to the mark, however, the objection relating to the CJ might hold some ground. Chief Justice asked, I can benefit from the case only when my son or any relative becomes a judge. Addressing the attorney general, Chief Justice said, You should have taken the notice of objections raised. Whose game we are playing, asked the Chief Justice adding, The attorney generals before you have taken bold stance on rule of law and even sacrificed their posts. Arguing his case in the court, Akram Sheikh, the counsel for petitioner, said, Levelling objections to the bench is aimed at scandalizing the CJ office and the apex court. Dr Basit who regretted his professional misconduct inside the courtroom, alleged the Chief Justice of misconduct outside the building of the Supreme Court. He alleged that CJ tried to create a rift between President and PM houses while probing him. In a hasty move, while talking to the journalists, Dr Basit said that he would file a reference against the Chief Justice in Urdu transcript and would send it to President Asif Ali Zardari. He also sought Presidents help in this regard through TV cameras. He claimed that President with the consultation of Prime Minister would send reference to the Supreme Judicial Commission. During the course of proceedings, CJ had stated that even the Chief Executive, who is PM, was not aware of the objections raised by the counsel for the federation. The Chief Justice had remarked to let the institutions functions. He had remarked that a case of that magnitude and import might not come again with so many judges hearing it. Justice Ramday questioned if there was any personal interest of the CJ in the case? Did you exclude the President and Prime Minister during the 18th Amendment process, he asked. Akram Sheikh argued that except two countries in the world, US and Israel, there was no parliamentary role in appointment of judges to the superior judiciary including the 'mother of all parliaments the British Parliament. He said that Supreme Court was hearing an important case in more than 60 years of its history regarding the parliaments powers to amend the constitution.