Fawad’s meeting with family not arranged: IHC may initiate contempt proceedings against Chief Commissioner

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has hinted at initiating contempt of court proceedings against Chief Commissioner for not arranging former information minister Fawad Chaudhry’s meeting with his family.

A single bench of Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb on Friday heard a petition filed by Fawad Chaudhry through advocate Faisal Fareed.

Earlier, the IHC bench directed the Chief Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) through its order dated 20.11.2023 to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending application in accordance with the law and preferably before the next date of hearing (November 27). The court had also required a copy of the decision to be submitted before the court on the next date of hearing.

During the hearing, on Friday, the state counsel appeared before the court and submitted that the directions had not been complied with.

Justice Miangul Hassan noted, “This, prima facie, amounts to flouting the directions passed by a Constitutional Court, for which Chief Commissioner, ICT is liable to be proceeded for contempt of Court.”

The judge stated in the written order that on the next date of the hearing, the Chief Commissioner, ICT is directed to tender an appearance and explain as to why the proceedings for contempt of Court should not be initiated against him. Later, he deferred the hearing of the case till November 27 for further proceedings.

In this matter, the petitioner (Fawad) sought indulgence of the Court with respect to his meeting with his family members and lawyers. His counsel stated that the petitioner who is a former federal minister and a member of the Supreme Court Bar deserves better facilities as per the Prison Manual/Rules and the same are not being provided to him.

The counsel further stated that during judicial remand, “the petitioner had filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate being the competent Court which was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate that Superintendent Central Jail Rawalpindi is directed to do needful as per law and rules.”

The counsel further asserted that despite the order/direction passed by the Judicial Magistrate, respondent No2 (Superintendent Adiala Jail Rawalpindi) is not paying any heed to the direction of the Judicial Magistrate, therefore, the petitioner is left with no option but to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023