ISLAMABAD: After working so hard to coax its legislators back to parliament, the government managed to irk the Muttahida Qaumi Movement with a law officer telling the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the gag order on Altaf Hussain was not an interim order, but a final one.

Also on Tuesday, the court asl(ed Mr Hussain to consider approaching the Lahore High Court (LHC) where the case is still pending to obtain an interpretation on whether the Sept 7 ban on airing his speeches in the media still stands.

A Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice Ejaz Afzal and Justice Qazi Faez Isa, had taken up a plea moved by the MQM chief, who resides in London, seeking the suspension of the LHC order because it violated his right tofreedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.

The LHC had ordered authorities to ban all kinds of media coverage of the MQM chief, accepting the petitioner`s contention that `objectionable speeches and anti-state slogans` are not protected under the ambit of free speech.

Additional Attorney General Waqar Rana, while giving the example of the Musharraf treason trial before a special court on Tuesday, argued that the LHC`s Sept 7 verdict was not an interim order, but a final one.

The stance, however, disappointed the MQM, which has only just returned to parliament after a long-drawn absence from legislatures over what it terms `excesses meted out to party workers` in the Karachi operation.

At the last hearing on Oct 30, the Supreme Court had sought legal assistance on the question of whether the high court gag order still held the field when it was not extended further by subsequent court orders. The decision to seek assistance on this point was made because stays granted by the high court under Order 39, Rule 2A of theCivil Procedure Code could only be issued for 15 days. But subsequent orders of the high court were silent about the fate of the interim order since nothing was said about it afterwards.

Soon after Tuesday`s hearing, the original LHC petitioners Sardar Virk and Abdul Malik began raising slogans against Asma Jahangir, who is Mr Hussain`s counsel.

The men insisted that they were not against the MQM as a party, but objected to Altaf Hussain`s provocative speeches which, they believed, were against the interests of the state.

They also distributed pamphlets depicting Ms Jahangir with different Indian leaders such as Shiv Sena`s Bal Tackeray and making accusations that she had sold out to the MQM.

Ms Jahangir told the media that as a counsel she was only concerned with the curbs placed on her client`s freedom of speech and expression as ensured by the constitution. She added that if the government intended to institute a treason case it was free to do so.

During Tuesday`s proceedings, the court cited the example of a picture of the Quaid-i-Azam, which was disgraced in the 2013 terrorist attack on the Ziarat Residency and shown by the electronic media. The court observed that the media could not be allowed complete freedom to show of fensive material.

Justice Ejaz Afzal observed that the court, at this stage, preferred not to interfere or comment on the ban and would let the high court decide its fate.

`The matter before us is an interim order which was not further extended by the high court,` Justice Afzalobserved.

Clarification Sought Our Staff Reporter in Karachi adds: The MQM asked the federal government to clarify whether the position taken by its lawyer in the Supreme Court was its of ficial policy.

`What the government lawyer did today in the Supreme Court was an attempt to spoil our relations with the federal government and to destabilise the democratic pro-cess and political reconciliation,` said MQM leader Dr Farooq Sattar at a press conference.

He claimed that during several rounds of negotiations, the federal government had made it clear that it did not intend to impose a ban on Mr Hussain`s speeches, interviews or to restrict his freedom of expression.

`We hoped that the government lawyer would take the same position in today`s hearing in the SC during our appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court (LHC).

But the position he took was shocking for us,` he added.

Dr Sattar said the government lawyer told the SC that the parts of Mr Hussain`s speech / statement mentioned in the petitions filed in the LHC fell within the ambit of Article 6 of the Constitution that deals with high treason.

The MQM leader said that no contact was established with the prime minister, finance and information ministers. He added that the MQM would decide its future course of action after the government clarified its position.