ISLAMABAD A judge under Article 204 of the Constitution does not come under the definition of a person therefore contempt of court proceeding could not be initiated against them, argued SM Zafar, counsel for Justice Sayed Zahid Hussain. Article 204(2a) says; A Court shall have power to punish any person who abuses, interferes with or obstructs the process of the Court in any way or disobeys any order of the Court. A five-member headed by Justice Muhammad Sair Ali and comprising Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, Justice Jawad S Khawaja, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Tariq Parvez was hearing contempt of court cases against judges who had violated the seven-member bench decision on November 3, 20007, and took oath under PCO. Justice Sair Ali said a person remains a person even after becoming a judge. But SM Zafar stated in ordinary circumstances judge is seen as individual, but in the court he or she is judge, therefore, the scope of Article 204 is not very wide. He said the word 'person is design in Indian law to save the judge from public ridicule and absurd. One judge seeking explanation from other judge is wrong. He said imagine a situation that a High Court judge issues notice to a Supreme Court judge. How would you feel and what would be the general public impression? Justice Jawwad said the news of 3rd November 2007 was spread all over the world, therefore, they could not remain oblivious to 3rd November 2007 and seeing things in that scenario. SM Zafar said: I understand your feelings and my sympathies are with you. Justice Siddiqui asked then whom you held responsible, those who had taken oath on 3rd November, 2007, or those who had given decision on that date, and reaffirmed it in 31st July, 2009 judgment. Justice Jawwad said: We do think heaviness to hear this case and who is going to put an end to it? SM Zafar replied that heaviness is on everyone and on 31st July 2009, the apex court had found its solution. The learned counsel said he was aware of the history and must not stress on that event. The issue is not of emotion and sentiment and they could not ignore that history from our mind, remarked Justice Sair Ali. However, SM Zafar said: We should interpret history for the development, adding the court should wider its scope otherwise it would create difficulties in the future. The proceeding was adjourned till today (Friday). Dr. Abdul Basit who is representing Justice Hasnat Ahmed Khan and Justice Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi would argue his case. It is pertinent to mention that in its July 31, 2009 judgment, the apex court had directed the government to file references in the Supreme Judicial Council against those judges, who had taken oath under PCO on November 3, 2007 and violated the seven members larger bench judgment against PCO. However, the Law Ministry did not file references against PCO judges in the Supreme Judicial Council. Later on, the court had issued contempt of court notices to those judges, who had violated the November 3, 2007 decision against PCO. Over 60 judges of the superior courts tendered their apologies before the apex court however, 10 judges, including Justice (retd) Abdul Hameed Dogar, had not apologised and decided to contest the contempt of court cases, including Justice (retd) Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, Justice Khurshid Bhinder, Justice Hamid Ali Shah, Justice Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry, Justice Hasnat Ahmad Khan, Justice Shabbar Raza Rizvi, Justice Yasmin Abbasi, Justice Jahan Zaib Rahim, Justice Sayed Zahid Hussain and Justice Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah. Agencies add: SM Zafar pleaded before the Supreme Court that the scope of Contempt of Court Act should not be extended to such an extent that it might create problems or block ways for the institution. Citing a number of verdicts of Indian and Pakistani courts, SM Zafar said the contempt issue should not be used against the judges who held the highest offices to dispense justice. At a point, he replied that he was personally against inclusion of Article 209 through 17th Amendment which even enabled filing of pleas against sitting judges by a common man.