ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Wednesday, expressed disappointment over Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s written reply and granted him another chance to file a reply to a showcause notice issued for threatening an additional sessions judge of Islamabad.
A five-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice Athar Minallah and comprising Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Miangul Hasan Aurangzeb, Justice Babar Sattar, and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jehangri heard the contempt case against Imran Khan and gave him another chance to submit his reply within one week.
Munir A Malik and Makhdoom Ali Khan were appointed as amicus curiae in the case to assist the bench.
In response to the showcause notice, Imran Khan appeared before the bench along with his counsels.
Hamid Khan, representing the PTI chairman, sought one-week time to file a supplementary reply to the show cause notice as pleaded in the provisional reply.
Imran Khan ready to 'take back' comments in contempt proceedings, IHC told
During the hearing, the IHC chief justice said that they have read the written response and added that they did not expect what was stated about the lower court judges. Expressing his dismay over the reply, he said that he was expecting that the mistake made would have been admitted.
Addressing Hamid Khan, the CJ asked him that you are not just Imran Khan’s counsel but also an aide to the court. He added that it was expected that you would have visited a subordinate court before coming here.
The chief justice remarked that he was saddened by Imran’s reply and the subordinate court referred to therein was the court of the common man. He further said that time has passed and words that have been said cannot be taken back.
Justice Minallah said that he was expecting Imran would admit to making a mistake in his reply. The judge said that he was expecting that he would say that he trusts the courts.
The IHC judge further said that the courts have taken up sensitive matters including torture and enforced disappearances. He remarked that torture cannot be allowed at any level. He asked is there a greater [form of] torture than making a person disappear?
He also mentioned that Imran questioned why the court was opened at midnight referring to the opening of the IHC at midnight of April 9, the day Imran lost the no-confidence vote and said that it was a “clear message” that the events of October 12, 1999, the day former president General Pervez Musharraf imposed martial law, would not be repeated.
The judge further said that Imran Khan asked why the court opened at midnight. He said that this court is open round the clock for any weak [person] or a constitutional matter.
He said that a political leader had a high stature and every moment was important for them. Justice Minallah asserted that no one could influence a judge. He admitted that their institution has committed several mistakes and welcomed criticism over it. He further said when photos of judges are posted on social media and accusations are levelled against them, none of the political parties stops their supporters from doing so.
He added that no one can influence this court or any judge. He continued that this court has to uphold civilian supremacy. These [lower court] judges are more important than the Supreme Court and high courts.
He also remarked that change will come when the constitution will be supreme and civilian supremacy will be upheld. Advocate General Islamabad (AGI) Jahangir Jadoon informed the bench that PTI leader Fawad Chaudhry had also given statements against the court. However, Imran’s lawyer distanced himself from Fawad’s comments.
The chief justice restrained the AG Islamabad from speaking and maintained that the matter is between the court and the one against who is the alleged contemnor. The judge said that you are registering sedition and terrorism cases and suggested that the approach should be reviewed.
The IHC bench noted in its written order, “We are not inclined to discharge the said notice having found the reply to be unsatisfactory bearing in mind, inter-alia, the law laid in the cases reported as “Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings” [PLD 2018 SC 773], “Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings” [PLD 2018 SC 738] and “The State v Dr Firdous Ashiq Awan [2020 PLD 109 Islamabad].”
The case was adjourned until September 8.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed.