ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial has remarked Chief Justice of Pakistan is a constitutional post and no one else can use the charge of chief justice on the basis of presumptions.

He further observed chief justice was available in this case who was not informed about the constitution of commission. It was not in the knowledge of CJP and commission was formed.

He further observed the Attorney General (AG) should first understand law before reading the references of courts decisions. AG should tell on what basis he presumed that there is conflict between three judges among us.

The second important issue is independence of judiciary. Ascertain it if the twitter handle is operating from within or outside the country. Did the government ascertain by using its resources audio's recording is being made from where and how. Who is doing all this.

The constitutional petitions against formation of audio leaks inquiry commission came up for hearing before a five members bench of SC presided over by CJP Umar Ata Bandial here Tuesday.

It was told by AG that verification whether these audios are false or true has yet to be made by federal government.

The CJP remarked what a beautiful procedure it is and what justice has been done with the judiciary. First the judges were insulted on these audios and then said " we get do the verification of veracity of these videos now.

He remarked question is this who planted these audios. Has government tried to know it who is doing this.

AG told the court one among leaked audios relates to mother in law of CJP. Federal government has just constituted commission on it so far. Commission has been constituted only to ascertain facts.

Justice Munib Akhtar inquired does the federation not know if audios are authentic or otherwise. Senior cabinet member held press conference on it. Is it not correct that interior minister has held press conference on these audios. Some audios were run in the press conference too. Is it correct legally that who does not know about reality of the audios raises objection on bench.

Addressing the AG he remarked " I am asking from you about the maintainability of petition. Why did the interior minister hold press conference. Can such slackness be demonstrated. The minister is removed or he resigns after such statement.

AG took the plea can statement of one minister be taken as statement of entire government. It is not in my knowledge if some one has held press conference.

Justice Munib Akhtar remarked collective responsibility of cabinet should come to fore on such important issue. It is separate thing if the minister asks for taking tea. Here statement was issued on important issue.

Justice Munib Akhtar remarked on AG clarification it will become too easy that Make the video in the name of a judge who has to be removed from the case.

There are legal justifications behind separating from case. This option is not for it that some one comes and says that judge should not hear such and such case.

Justice Munib Akhtar remarked that phone tapping was made of 4 among 7 judges who had heard Benazir Bhutto case.

AG said in this case there was question of powers of the president. No one can be judge of his own cause. There is no ill intent of ours in this entire matter.

Shoaib Shaheen the counsel for the petitioner Abid Zubairi argued that it was said by considering audios correct that independence of judiciary was affected. No mention is made about who has tapped audio in the TORs of the commission. All the audios started coming after suo motu notice taken regarding Punjab election. Who did recording of these audios. All the audios were made public through one hacker.

He argued here the question is interference of executive in the judiciary. This bench has not given decision against or in favor of any one. It has to make an interpretation.

This will become the easy way for blackmailing that fake audios will be got made through some fake man. This court had asked only for holding election. Audios started coming on it. What was not said in talks shows. Call the record from PEMRA and see it. Conspiracy was hatched to divide judiciary. People are looking towards court. 82 years old father is lifted due to political views of people.

The petitioner Riaz Hussain Rahi said no number has been allotted to my petition on contempt of court.

The court made it clear the matter of contempt is between court and respondent.

CJP remarked the stay order stays. What decision has to be given on the petition. We will think about it.

The court adjourned the hearing of constitutional petitions against audio leaks inquiry commission for indefinite period.

The court extended stay order for stopping audio leaks commission from working.

The court reserved judgment regarding federal government objections on bench.