ISLAMABAD -  The Supreme Court has been moved for initiating contempt of court proceedings against incumbent Federal Minister for Railways Khawaja Saad Rafique for “ridiculing and maligning” the judges.

Awais Younis, former president Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Lahore Cantonment, on Tuesday filed the petition under Article 204 of the Constitution read with the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003.

He said that Rafique in a press conference on July 30, 2017 said: “The PML-N leadership was not given the right to appeal. We will go to the people’s court.”

The petitioner said that the federal minister for railways also stated: “Were the judges who had taken oath under the PCO ‘Sadiq and Ameen’? Were the military dictators honest and truthful?”

Younis said that the actions, messages and press conference of Saad Rafique tantamount to clear contempt of court by scandalising and ridiculing the judges and the judgments passed by this court into hatred.

The case of Saad Rafique is on a similar footing to the case of former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gillani, who was held responsible for wilfully flouting and defying the direction of the august court, the petitioner has maintained.

He said that accusing the judges for being involved in a “conspiracy” and terming the judgment as a matter of revenge by the Railways minister clearly amounted to scandalising the court, which was clear contempt of court.

“It is immaterial whether the attack on the judges is with reference to a case to be heard or actually under trial or recently adjudged,” the petitioner has maintained. 

The offence is in no way mitigated when the attack is not upon a particular judge but upon the august court as a whole, indeed upon all its judges, the petitioner has stated.

Younis said that Saad Rafique was found using contemptuous and abusive language against the judges in the press conference.

The act and action of the Railways minister is obvious act and conduct of serious contempt of this court for which he is liable to be dealt with under the law of contempt, the petitioner has stated.

The petitioner has no other alternate remedy except to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this court under Article 204 of the Constitution.