LAHORE - Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry on Monday gave the Attorney General of Pakistan till March 14 to file a reply to a petition against the grant of immunity to Raymond Davis under the Vienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963 as well as the Consular and Diplomatic Privileges Act of 1972. The petitioner, Advocate Muhammad Azhar Siddique, primarily assailed the Act, terming it against fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. He said article 9 of the Constitution guarantees protection to the life of every citizen, therefore no action that gives protection to a killer could be taken. He raised another issue in his plea regarding the contradictory statements made by former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and former PPP information secretary Fauzia Wahab on the question of diplomatic immunity for Davis, the US national who killed two Pakistanis in Lahore. The petitioner urged the court to summon both the dignitaries to the court to elicit their explanation. He also invited attention of the court to the Interior Ministry allegedly procuring the record of the Foreign Ministry. He prayed to the court to order the Interior Ministry return all the record related to Davis to the Foreign Ministry and furnish a copy of it to the court as well. The court, however, did not entertain both requests, observing if need arose, the functionaries can be summoned. The court added: Everything will be done when need arises. The petitioner contended that Davis couldnt be given immunity in view of the nature of the crime and his overall dubious character. He said the US authorities themselves have made contradictory statements regarding Davis status. They described him technical and administrative staff at the Lahore Consulate, then he was declared US Embassy staff in Islamabad and then a Peshawar Consulate member, said the petitioner. Challenging immunity to Davis under the international law, he argued that it couldnt be done by violating the law of the land. He said the Constitution is a social contract between the rulers and the masses, and no one could violate it. The counsel said if blanket immunity was granted to the killer by invoking local laws (the Act), it would violate the spirit of the Constitution.