Islamabad - Chief Justice of Pakistan Nasirul Mulk Wednesday dismissed the applications for constituting a larger bench to hear Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification case.

A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, today would resume hearing of the petitions filed by President PML-Q Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, PTI leader Ishaq Khan Khakwani and a lawyer Gohar Nawaz Sindhu for the disqualification of PM Nawaz Sharif.

The petitioners had prayed to the chief justice that in view of the importance of the case 7-member larger bench be constituted to hear the case, which was rejected. However, the PTI leader further prayed that Justice Jawwad should resuse from the bench hearing the petitions.

Ch Shujaat in his application said the petitions involves not only some serious questions of public importance, touching fundamental rights of the petitioner, but also of great national importance having regard to the unique circumstances in which these issues have arisen.

He stated that the case is of first impression involving complex questions of constitutional interpretation in the wake of recent political events taking place in the country, which will have far reaching effects for the future of Pakistan. “In view of it the Chief Justice is requested to set up larger bench comprising seven senior most judges of the apex court.”

Three petitioners are seeking the premier’s disqualification under Article 62 (f) of the Constitution - contending that the prime minister had recently given a ‘false statement’ in the National Assembly regarding the involvement of the Army chief in negotiating with the leaders of protest camps currently set up in Islamabad.

The PTI leader along with setting up of larger bench also prayed that Justice Jawwad who is heading a three-member bench, should recuse from the bench. He stated in the last hearing some unpleasant event took place during the proceeding due to that his counsel was at ease with Justice Jawwad.

“The applicant is aware that he cannot choose his own judge, but the applicant has a right to object to a particular judge when there is a serious apprehension on his part that justice may not be done or the applicant may not get a fair trial.”

He said in the circumstances the applicant has every reason to believe that justice would not be done unless Justice Jawwad declines to hear this case. He hoped that Justice Jawwad should not insist on continuing with the hearing of the petitions.