on him to perform his functions, sending him on forced leave and appointment of any other judge as acting CJP.

He prayed that no person, who harbours or against whom the petitioner has sufficient allegations of bias, can become an SJC member.

He pointed out the names of Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, and Lahore High Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, who he said, did not have the right to sit at the SJC.

The petitioner has also maintained that an in-camera trial is violation of the Constitution and his fundamental rights and that it will amount to a travesty of justice and fair play.

He has maintained that the SJC has no validity without a permanent CJP and that an acting chief justice cannot preside over the council meeting. This court has settled this law in the Al-Jehad Trust case.

The CJP also called the appointment of ACJ illegal. According to him, the SJC must, at all times, be presided over by the CJP. He claimed that he not only was the CJP but also an integral and unavoidable chairman of the SJC.

The CJP's petition maintains that the SJC, as presently constituted, will be incapable of doing justice in the cause of the petitioner because at least three of its five members will either benefit directly and  substantially from the removal of the petitioner from the office of CJP.

Justice Chaudhry in his petition has maintained that the three controversial judges are disqualified to sit at the SJC for having personal interest, bias, and prejudice against him (CJP). The petition said the petitioner neither expects a fair trial nor does he expect any justice at the hands of the three judges as long as they are members of the SJC.

About Justice Javed Iqbal, the petition maintains that his removal from the office of chief justice will open up the prospect of Justice Javed Iqbal becoming the permanent chief for a term of more than four years. "Can he escape then the temptation of voting to oust the petitioner," the petition has questioned.

"He rushed to take an oath as the acting chief justice and celebrated the occasion despite the CJP was still detained in Rawalpindi in the office of the referring authority," the petition says.

The petition says that Justice Javed Iqbal obtained admission for two of his daughters "“ Ayesha Javed and Qaiser Javed "“ in the Bolan Medical College despite they failed to qualify for admission on merit. They were adjusted against a "special quota" in 1995 and latter against an "Azad Jammu and Kashmir quota" in 1998.

The CJP has maintained that Justice Javed Iqbal, got his son-in-law"“ a civil judge "“ transferred and posted him as the deputy secretary at the Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Balochistan, against the rules.

About Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, the petitioner alleged that he too rushed to administer oath to Justice Javed Iqbal as acting chief justice despite the fact that CJP (the petitioner) was still detained in Rawalpindi at the office of the referring authority.

A reference/complaint is pending against him concerning the alleged misappropriation of funds of the Shah Abdul Latif Bhitai University, Khairpur. That is already on the record of the council.              

About the LHC CJ, the CJP stated in his petition, that several references/complain ts against him are pending. The CJP in his petition says that the LHC CJ has developed a strong and settled hostility towards him, which is widely known to members of the bar and the bench.

The petition says that the LHC CJ was actively involved in the conspiracy to disable the

CJP. "His recommendations for elevation of advocates and judicial officers to the high court were not approved by the petitioner. His elevation to the Supreme Court was opposed by the petitioner as CJP in August 2005," the petition says.

The petition says that the LHC CJ, unfortunately, was not even on talking terms with the petitioner. Nor do they even shake hands. "Such has been the open display of hostility by him that even when the petitioner, as CJP, visited the Punjab Bar Council at its invitation, he, as the LHC CJ, instructed all his judges not to attend the function," the petition says.

The petition says that his (LHC CJ) brother is in the federal cabinet and has been severely criticising the petitioner.

In view of the given facts, the CJP has maintained that the insistence of the controversial judges on continuing with the SJC will further reinforce the belief that they have a settled and inherent interest and prejudice in a certain outcome of the reference, which they want to ensure by personally remaining on the council.

"In this view of the matter there is no possibility of the petitioner obtaining any justice, or even a fair trial, from a council that of which the above-mentioned three justices are members," the petition says.

The petition says that the referring authority's impugned action to file the reference against the CJP, and the manner in which it has done so, is an attempt by the referring authority to humble, humiliate, subjugate the judicial organ of the state, especially at a time when the organ was just beginning to assert its constitutional authority by giving relief to the common man.

The reference is also vitiated by malice as it is in direct reaction to the fact that the petitioner chose not to resign when being persuaded by the referring authority to do so.

The petition says that the prime minister, on whose advice the reference has been filed, was himself found, in a judgement authored by the petitioner, to have been engaged in some serious omissions and commissions in the Pakistan Steel Mills case, in which the attorney general had himself admitted that the whole process was "˜convoluted,' and on the basis of that judgment, the PM faced no-confidence motion in the National Assembly.

Contesting the point of an in-camera trial, the petitioner has maintained that the trial in camera can take place only with the consent of the petitioner.

On the above grounds, the CJP has sought following relief ... that the Supreme Court should declare that no reference can be filed by the referring authority or examined by the SJC against the CJP under Article 209 of the Constitution, declare  that the SJC cannot be lawfully constituted in the absence of CJP and that an acting chief justice cannot preside over the SJC in his stead, declare that the SJC otherwise constituted is without lawful authority, declare that the reference filed against the petitioner is mala fide and for a collateral purpose, declare that the orders purporting to restrain the petitioner from performing his functions or purporting to send him on forced leave are without lawful authority, declare that the petitioner remains the chief justice and cannot be restrained in any manner so long as he continues to occupy that office, declare accordingly that the appointment of any other judge as ACJ is illegal and without lawful authority, declare that all proceedings taken in an unseemly and unholy haste are mala fide and thus without lawful authority, direct that all constraints, restraints and impediments in the way of the petitioner's performing the functions and exercising the powers of that office be removed immediately and forthwith, direct the SJC to refrain from hearing the reference, declare that, in any case, no person who harbours, or against whom the petitioner has sufficient reason to allege personal bias against the petitioner can remain an SJC member, declare that Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, and Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court Justice Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry do not have the right to sit at SJC, declare that trial in camera is a violation of the Constitution, will violate the fundamental rights of the petitioner and will amount to a travesty of justice and fair play and grant such other relief to which the petitioner may be found entitled.