The Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan on Wednesday gave a chance to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan to explain his purported flouting of a court order that defined the limits for his party’s 'Azadi March' on May 25, and stopped short of issuing him a show-cause notice.

The court demanded a detailed reply from Imran by November 5, instructing that it should bear his signature. The apex court also sought relevant videos in the case from Imran’s lawyers.

‘Breach of undertaking’: SC seeks reply from Imran Khan, his lawyers

“We are giving another chance to Imran for an explanation,” said Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial while presiding over a hearing of the contempt case. He added that the court had been proceeding with “caution” and “patience”.

The court decision came with an observation by CJP that the material available with the court justified the issuance of a notice to the former premier.

“According to the material available with the court, a notice should be issued to Imran Khan. We are still giving him a chance to explain,” he said.

Against govt officials: PTI leaders urge SC to initiate contempt proceedings

On October 27, the SC sought replies from Imran and the party’s lawyers on the agencies’ reports and the federal government’s allegations that PTI breached its undertaking given to the court on May 25, 2022 not to hold a protest at D-Chowk.

A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Mazahar Akbar Naqvi heard a contempt petition filed by federal government against the PTI chairman.

The bench rejected the request of Additional Attorney General (AAG) Amir Rehman, who represented the federation, to issue notice to Imran Khan under Sections 2(a) and 3 of Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003.

However, the Chief Justice asked him that in case “you (federation) have any issue (in between the next hearing) you can approach us”.

He then adjourned the case till next week.

The chief justice, in the order, said: “We have read the material (reports) and examined the Ordinance 2003 and the Order 27 of Supreme Court Rules 1980, but at the present stage it is necessary to ascertain the factual aspects of the breach of the undertaking.”