ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court Monday issued an interim order in treason case against former President Pervez Musharraf, stating that apparently the government did not take any action against him despite a Senate resolution and a court order.

The court directed the federation to file a detailed response telling if the former army chief’ November 2007 actions were legal and whether the Article 6 applies to those. It also asked the government to give details of the actions taken against him since July 31, 2009, and adjourned the hearing until tomorrow (Wednesday).

A two-member bench, comprising Justice Jawwad S Khawaja and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain, was hearing five identical petitions regarding subverting and abrogation of constitution by the former dictator when he imposed emergency through promulgation of Provisional Constitutional Order on November 3, 2007.

Attorney General Irfan Qadir, who said he had some objections to proceedings, was directed to submit those in written along with the federation’s stance. The AG said the entire proceedings emanate from July 2009 judgment in whose pursuance proceedings were initiated against judges who took oath under PCO but no action was taken against those who ordered for Nov 2007 steps. He said that justice should not only be done but it should seem to be done, and posed the question: “Should the judges who took oath of loyalty to Musharraf hear the case?”

Justice Khilji told the AG that his statement did not suit to federation’s counsel. The AG said that being the chief law officer of court and the federation counsel at the same time he walks on a tight rope and he has to maintain a balance between both the positions.

Justice Jawwad said he (AG) was there to represent the federation and not to balance the positions. He said: “If they (judge) were to blame for the mistakes then let everything come in the open… The judges are also human beings and can commit mistakes.” The honourable judge said there should be a time for realisation and the bad practices should not be continued.

When the proceedings started at 9:30am, no one appeared on behalf of the federation and the Sindh government.

After an interval, the court asked from law ministry’s Senior Joint Secretary Sohail Qadeer Siddiqui what action the federation has taken in the last four and a half years.

The law ministry was supposed to arrest Musharraf upon his arrival on March 24and take action against him according to Article 6, the court said. Siddiqui replied that they had completely implemented the July 31 judgment but it was the responsibility of the interior ministry to get a case registered against Musharraf and take action against him.

This reply enraged the court. Justice Jawwad inquired if any summary was moved in this regard. The secretary said that in case of any conflict of opinion between ministries of law and interior, the Cabinet Division is required to resolve the issue.

Musharraf’s counsel Ahmed Raza Kasuri, who re-submitted his client’s amended application, prayed that the court should not proceed until it decides his application seeking a full court bench.