ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court on Thursday requisitioned the record of a private complaint and five cases registered against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto from the Lahore High Court and ordered the federal law secretary and the SC registrar to furnish record of the martial law order through which Justice Yaqoob Ali was removed from his position as chief justice of Pakistan. Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, heading an 11-member bench hearing the presidential reference, observed that from the procured record it seemed that after the imposition of martial law in July 1977, besides the revival of criminal case against Bhutto, a private complaint was also filed on behalf of Nawab Mohammad Ahmed Kasuris family. Initially it remained pending with the additional sessions judge, Lahore, but probably in the month of August, 1977, the case was transferred to the Lahore High Court where a five-member bench heard it. The chief justice noticed that the record so far received from the LHC regarding the case showed the complaint had not been transmitted to the SC. He, therefore, officially directed the office for requisition of the complaint by sending a letter to the LHC registrar to procure the record and submit it in the SC. The court observed that five different cases under the provisions of martial law were also registered during the hearing of criminal case against Bhutto by a five-member bench of the LHC. The hearing of those cases was commenced in Kot Lakpat Jail on February 2, 1978, by a tribunal headed by Shafi-ur-Rehman. It was also directed to procure that record and transmit it to the apex court. The court noted that these cases were registered during the pendency of criminal case in the LHC. Therefore, the examination of these cases was likely to throw light on the reference. The Punjab home secretary and the federal secretary of ministry of interior were directed to procure the copy of martial law order passed under Martial Law Regulation 12. The court observed that after the grant of bail by Justice N K A Sumdani to Bhutto, the former prime minister was arrested from 70 Clifton, Karachi, under martial law and was brought to Lahore, where the LHC larger bench cancelled the bail. The law secretary and the SC registrar were directed to place record regarding late justice (r) Yaqoob Ali Khans sudden removal from the position of chief justice of the Supreme Court and appointing Justice Anwar-ul-Haq through a notification issued on September 23, 1978. Attorney General Maulvi Anwar and Punjab Advocate General Khawaja Haris were directed to make the justice (r) Shafi-ur-Rehman report public and supply its copies to the honourable members of the bench, amicus curias (friends of the court) and all the advocate generals. During proceeding of the case Aitzaz Ahsan, amicus curiae, informed the court about the cases registered against Bhutto. He said the hearing of Bhutto case was not regular. Babar Awan while arguing the case said Bhutto, who was president and prime minister of Pakistan, was deprived of fundamental rights, which are guaranteed under Article 25 in the Constitution. Bhutto was not allowed even to consult his lawyers, he said. He, in order to make his point that the apex court could give its opinion on the reference filed under Article 186, read the Sindh High Court Bar Association judgment. The chief justice asked him the SHCBA petition was filed under article 184(3) and not under Article 186. The CJP again pointed out that if he wanted them to give opinion under Article 186, then the law needed to get passed by the parliament, as under 186 the court has only advisory jurisdiction. Awan insisted that the SC has vast power to hear any question of law under Article 186. He said the apex court had given its judgment on presidential reference sent to the court to recognise Bangladesh. The chief justice remarked the court gave judgment after the Assembly had passed a resolution regarding it. The CJP further stated the apex court had also given its opinion in Hasba Bill and Balochistan budget issue. Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk questioned what would be the consequence or affect of the court order. Awan said the purpose of reference was to seek the SC opinion on the violation of certain provision of the Constitution. The CJP said it was not an ordinary case and the court had given much importance to it, but they wanted to see whether or not an opinion could be given in this case under Article 186 of the constitution. The court adjourned the hearing for the third week of June.