Chief Justice manhandling: Supreme Court reserves judgement

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved the judgement in the case of manhandling of the Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhmmad Chaudhry on March 13. A bench of the apex court comprising Acting Chief Justice Mr Justice Rana Baghwandas, Justice Tassadduque Hussain Jillani and Justice Nasirul Mulk, heard the case at length and reserved the judgement.
Earlier the apex court had charged the top officials of the Islamabad police and district administration under Contempt of Court law for their involvement in the case; however all the accused officials tendered their unconditional apology. Counsel for the Chief Commissioner, IGP, and SSP, Mujeeb-ur-Rehman said his clients have tendered their unconditional apology.
"Their apology is sincere, genuine and from the bottom of the heart, and may be accepted in the interest of (the) justice", he said. Mujeeb-ur-Rehman said that his clients have expressed determination in upholding the dignity of the court in future. "They have faced much public disapprobation, which is enough punishment", he said.
Rehman cited different judgements in which the court had accepted the apology of the contemnors. Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk observed that this is the case of the manhandling of the Chief Justice. "Are you asking us to forgive them?" Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk remarked.
Rehman said that they might be pardoned as throughout their careers they have served well, and tendered their apology without referring to the facts of the incidents. Counsel for the Deputy Commissioner, Raja Bashir, said that his client is repenting on what has happened and his apology may be accepted. Counsel for SHO and ASI, Qazi Amin said that his client regrets the incident of the March 13 and relying on the mercy of this court.
Counsel for DSP, Jamil Hashmi, Ibrahim Sati said that his client has also tendered an unconditional apology and placed himself to the mercy of the court. Attorney General (AG) Makhdoom Ali Khan said that if the unconditional apology is tendered then it is the discretion of the court to decide the matter. The matter is always between the court and the contemnor.