LAHORE - At the lawyers level, debate is on as to the authority of Standing Committee of the National Assembly to seek appearance of the sitting Chief Justice of Pakistan on the issue relating to extra marks to his daughter. Opinion of the lawyers is divided on the issue yet majority view is, the Committee must not go ahead with the matter after stay has been granted by the Supreme Court against its proceedings. Some other say that on the issue of extra marks to the daughter of Justice Abdul Hameed in FSc, is leading to a collision between two important vital organs of the state which is not appropriate at this juncture when external threats are looming large on the country. They say that the committee and the court are acting within their respective jurisdiction but the question is whether a judge of the Superior Judiciary is constitutionally immune from appearance before the committee, is a matter which could be explained and interpreted by the court only. Therefore the committee should not go ahead by the inquiry into the matter till the court decides on that count. They said the Supreme Court explanation and interpretation of the relevant provision has become more needful particularly when Islamabad High Court has established supremacy of the Parliament holding that the Court cannot stay proceedings of the Committee. Article-69 of the Constitution restricts the court from inquiring into the proceedings of the Parliament and also that validity of the proceedings of the Parliament will not be called into question before the court on the basis of irregularity. At the same time, Constitution under Article-69(2) subjects the exercise of powers by the members of the assembly with respect to regulating procedure, or the conduct of business, or maintaining order, to the jurisdiction of the court. Whereas Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly 2007, in Rule No 201 (5) state that no bill can be presented before the House which falls within the cognisance of a court or it related to the matter pending before any court or other authority performing judicial or quasi judicial functions. Article-68 of the Constitution restricts discussion by the Parliament on the conduct of any judge of the Superior Judiciary in the discharge of his duties while Article-209 states that no judge could be removed from his office sane through Supreme Judicial Council after it has inquired into and proved the charges of misconduct against him. On the issue in hand, senior lawyer Barrister Zafarullah Khan opines, since the Supreme Court has seized of the matter, the Committee cannot proceed further till decision by the court. If the NA does not agree with the court decision, it can set aside the same but only through the amending the relevant provision of the Constitution, he adds. He says a Judge is accountable only to the SJC hence cannot be called by the Committee. Another senior advocate A.K.Dogar however holds a different view and says neither NA nor the Court, it is the Constitution which is supreme for giving birth to both. However he supports that the SC stay order should be respected by the Standing Committee and it should not move on with the matter until stay is vacated. He said under Article 69, the Committee is empowered to call the CJ as witness as the matter before the Committee relates to his person and not to his conduct during performance of his duties. Dogar suggests for resignation of Justice Dogar as given the situation at present, it would be seen a good gesture on his part to protect respect and dignity of the institution. PML (N) lawyers straightway charge the CJ with misconduct however their statement carries more of a political colour. Khwja Mahmood Ahmad and Waseem Butt advocate say they do not accept the PCO judges and the issue in hand proves their stand. They support the Committee proceedings saying, Constitutionally Parliament is supreme and its works through its committees. The alleged foul play in the award of the extra mark to Farrah Dogar has deprived thousands others of their rightful due and which was not possible without knowledge of her father and his influence, says Waseem. Some other experts in a related point to the issue question that if the SJC is the only means to remove a judge, then what is the status of the PCO of November 3, 2007, which instantly threw about 60 judges, including Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry out of the office.