ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that if there arises a need for the implementation of Article 6 of the Constitution, it will fulfil its responsibility.

It noted that under the law, Secretary Ministry of Interior has to lodge a complaint against former President Pervez Musharraf under Article 6 of Constitution read with High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973 for subverting or abrogating the Constitution.

It was the argument of Musharraf’s counsel Ahmed Raza Kasuri that it will be a futile exercise as acting law secretary, interior secretary and Attorney General Irfan Qadir had informed the court about the stance of interim setup and therefore now let the new government decide the matter.

Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, heading a three-judge bench, said: “Rest assure that there is no question of futility.” “If the secretary interior does not discharge its responsibility under the law then they (Court) would fulfill their constitutional obligation, and we have to give judgment,” he further said. It was also his view that deterrence against military intervention would come with the implementation of Article 6 of the Constitution.

Earlier, A K Dogar argued that the purpose of these petitions was to close the gate of military intervention for all times to come. He said there was similarity between the Martial Law of Yahya Khan and General (retd) Pervez Musharraf and the 14-member bench had noted it that with the slight change it (Musharraf Martial Law) was replay of 25-03-69 act of Yahya Khan.

He said it was the claim of Musharraf’s counsels that whatever former dictator did he did for the welfare of the state. Dogar contended that no one can presume that he was more patriotic then other citizens therefore Musharraf had no right to overthrow the system.  Justice Jawwad remarked that how a person could claim that he has more wisdom than the collective wisdom of Parliament, which framed constitution in accordance with the will of people.

Dogar argued that in the past many times the constitution was subverted but no action was taken against the usurpers and that was the reason that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was the elected leader thought to step into the shoes of the Martial Law and became civilian MLA.

In the same breath, he said that PML-Q not only sided with Musharraf but also said they would elect him in uniform even for 10 times. “Those politicians were responsible for the military intervention for their vested interests.” Justice Khilji, however said there were also good politicians.

Dogar argued that with the no of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry there was moral renaissance in the country. He pleaded that an unconstitutional action always remain illegal even the people don’t come out on the roads and file petitions against it.

He said neither the court nor the federal government could ignore the 14-member judgment to constitute the special court for the trial of Musharraf. His view was that the special court should be constituted for 4 to 5 years.

Justice Ejaz Afzal inquired that according to Article 12 (2) of the Constitution the trial should be held of all those who subverted or abrogated the constitution from 1956 and not 1999. The learned counsel replied that just for the sake of convenience and to the fear that Pandora Box will open with this case therefore it should not heard was not right. He said let the law take its own course.

The case is adjourned till June 24, 2013.