ISLAMABAD - The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Thursday decided to indict Chairman Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan in contempt of court proceeding initiated against him for threatening an additional sessions judge of Islamabad.
A five-member larger bench of the IHC headed by Chief Justice of IHC Justice Athar Minallah and comprising Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Miangul Hasan Aurangzeb, Justice Babar Sattar and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jehangri conducted hearing of the contempt case againstThe IHC stated in its written order that they have heard the counsel for the respondent, the Attorney General as well as the amici curiae. Khan’s counsel for the respondent took the bench through the supplementary response filed by the respondent and submitted that it was an explanation of the speech in relation to which contempt proceedings have been initiated.
The bench noted, “We have considered the response so filed and have not found it satisfactory. We are not convinced that the respondent has purged himself of the wrongdoing alleged against him in relation to which the show cause notice was issued, in view of the law laid down in the cases titled “Syed Masroor Ahsan and others v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others” [PLD 1998 SC 823], “Shahid Orakzai v. Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz Group) and 8 others”, “Contempt proceedings against Senator Nehal Hashmi” “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].”
Later, the court adjourned the hearing till September 22 for framing of charge against the respondent.
During the hearing, the IHC Chief Justice observed that the PTI Chairman Imran’s replies to the court’s show-cause notice appeared to be justifying contempt of the judiciary and showed no remorse or regret.
Hamid Khan, representing Imran, said that there was a difference between giving a justification and a clarification and here, he is giving a clarification. Justice Athar asked that would you have submitted the same reply if these words were used for a Supreme Court or a high court judge? He mentioned that Imran was giving the justification that Gill was tortured while in police custody. He asked that will the decisions be taken in rallies or the courts.
He also asked that can a former prime minister take a stance of ignorance of the law. He made it clear that the judges of district courts were more important than those of the high court or Supreme Court.
Justice Sattar asked that if this court takes legal action against Imran under the Contempt of Court Act, then he would publicly comment on it. Hamid answered that every citizen had the right to initiate legal proceedings. Imran’s lawyer argued that his client had stated multiple times that he was never against the judiciary. “He ran a campaign for the freedom of the judiciary,” Hamid pointed out.
He clarified that the PTI chairman’s aim was not to use harsh words against the female judge. He added that there is a difference between a justification and a clarification. Justice Athar asked that why the judges of the lower courts were considered different to those of higher courts. He added that you are justifying contempt of court which means that you have no remorse or regret. Justice Sattar asked that if the PTI would threaten “action” against the five judges who are hearing the case if he was not happy with their decision. Imran’s counsel said that his client had used the word ‘regret’ in his response on the court’s orders and once again requested the court to dismiss the case. He maintained that they can assure the court that Imran Khan will be more careful in the future.
Justice Athar remarked that there were three types of contempt of court charges: judicial, civil and criminal. He added that those cases do not fall under criminal contempt as they talked about the role of the court while Imran had commented on a matter that was sub-judice and they have not initiated contempt proceedings in an attempt to scandalize the court. The judge also pointed out the criminal contempt was an offence that was “serious in nature”.
Earlier, Khan submitted in his written response that with utmost respect he cannot even imagine undertaking or advising the undertaking of a contumacious and intentional malicious campaign against judiciary or to interfere or obstruct the course of justice in any manner whatsoever. Imran and decided to frame charges against him in this matter.