ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Monday, warned the Adiala jail superintendent not to place obstacles in the way of Imran Khan’s right to consult his legal advisors.
It also made it clear that such obstacles will not be tolerated and this Court will immediately initiate proceedings in contempt if any similar incident is reported again.
A single bench of Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan stated this in his written order in a contempt of court petition filed by Imran seeking direction upon the respondents to allow legal attorneys and political aides to have a meeting with him.
During the hearing, the respondent jail authorities have submitted a list purporting to show that regular visits continue to take place per the various directions passed by the courts.
However, the IHC bench expressed its dismay to learn that obstacles of rather petty kind continue to be placed in the way of meetings between Imran Khan’s legal advisors and him by, for instance, “making the legal advisors walk for miles before reaching the jail, placing glass barriers during their interviews, and placing police officers or others within earshot when the interviews took place.”
Justice Sardar Ishaq stated, “The AG and the Superintendent Jail are put on clear warning that such obstacles in the way of the petitioner’s right to consult his legal advisors” will not be tolerated, and this Court will immediately initiate proceedings in contempt if any similar incident is reported again.
“No formal show cause notice would then be required and this order today will be treated as the formal show cause notice for the said purposes. If such an event is reported again, the respondents would automatically file their reply without a direction, which would be treated as their reply in contempt proceedings.”
On the other hand, the court also agreed with the stance of the jail authorities that the SOPs ought to be respected as long as they are in force, and the shuffling across of the meeting days between the lawyers and non-lawyers can very well be administratively challenging for the jail authorities and, therefore, the petitioners have to observe those SOPs.
Counsel for the petitioner also sought time to review the report which is shown to the court, and which is directed to be filed formally by the respondents through a CM.
Later, the bench deferred hearing of the case till September 13 for further
proceedings.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024