ISLAMABAD Finally Law Minister Babar Awans strategy to put the Supreme Court in a difficult situation through a non-serious and inexperienced legal squad in the 18th Amendment case did work, as the apex court Tuesday cried out over contradictory, irrelevant and incorrect arguments made by the Federations counsels. After completion of Wasim Sajjads non-serious arguments on behalf of the Government, two other members of the legal team, Sardar Ghazi and Ibraheem Satti, started with irrelevant and factually incorrect arguments that put every member of the 17-member larger bench into a difficult situation. Justice Saqib Nisar asked Satti, What do you want to tell us by narrating the history and past judgements? Justice Asif Khosa while observing 'amazing arguments asked Satti, Are you really presenting the Federation? Satti told the bench that his views were different but for the sake of 'earning he was arguing otherwise. Justice Sair Ali said, Mr Satti enlighten us regarding your 'minus earning views. On that Satti felt sensitivity of the matter and retreated from his sayings under the pretext of slip of tongue. The Chief Justice suggested Satti not to go into irrelevant explanation and defend the stance of the Federation with patience. But he did 'amazing work on behalf of the Government by making controversial remarks. Satti told the bench that there was no tradition both in India and Pakistan to consult the people while framing Constitution. Justice Khosa remarked, We are writing your words like your first sentence that Parliament has no power to amend the Constitution. The Chief Justice restricted Satti from blaming the institutions and told him that there was no confrontation among them. System is enacted due to which the courts and the Parliament are performing their duties, he added. Wasim Sajjad, leading counsel for the Federation, completed his arguments on Monday last but a fair number of legal wizards - who observed the arguments - termed them contradictory and non-serious on part of the leading counsel. It was astonishing for me to hear the arguments of Senator Wasim Sajjad, twice chairman Senate and incumbent Leader of the Opposition in the same House, who presented them in a careless manner despite the fact that it is an important case in the history of the country, commented a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court. Justice Anwar Jamali and Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday asked Wasim Sajjad, On one hand you are restricting us from hearing this case but on the other hand you are suggesting us to interpret and harmonise the contradictory and poorly drafted provisions of the 18th Amendment. Justice Jamali observed that Wasim argued for unlimited parliamentary powers but he negated the same for the court.