ISLAMABAD    -   Chairman Pakistan Teh­rik-e-Insaf (PTI) Im­ran Khan Wednesday informed the Supreme Court of Pakistan that its order of May 25, wherein the PTI’s previ­ous long march was re­stricted from entering Islamabad’s D-Chowk, was ‘unknowingly vio­lated’.

Advocate Salman Akram Raja filed the former PM’s detailed reply in the contempt of court case, wherein he assured the court of his absolute commitment to the rule of law and respect for, and faithful compliance of its judg­ments and orders. Ad­vocate Babar Awan and Faisal Fareed Hussain have also submitted their detailed replies.

The bench in the last proceedings had ex­pressed its disappoint­ment over the replies of PTI chief, Babar and Faisal for violating the court’s trust about the May 25 order, and sought detailed re­plies from them. A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, will hear JUI-F Senator Kamran Murtaza’s petition, wherein he had sought court’s directions to the federal and provin­cial governments to devise comprehen­sive guidelines for holding of public ral­ly, meeting and sit-in in Islamabad today.

Imran Khan’s reply further said, “In its order, the SC also asked lawyer Babar Awan to meet with me. Despite the court order, the administration did not facil­itate the meeting.” The PTI chief add­ed that on May 25 at 6:45pm the video message given to the workers was re­leased on the information of the political workers. Imran also stated that during the protest, it was impossible to contact his lawyer by phone because of jammers and said that he apologises for the step taken unknowingly.

“In any case, the written order of 25 May, 2022, does not specifically mention D-Chowk,”, says Imran in his reply sub­mitted through his advocate. The reply also stated that the acts of violence that occurred during the evening of 25 May, 2022, at various parts of Islamabad, in­cluding on Jinnah Avenue, were the con­sequence of continued state brutality. “No act of violence was either intend­ed or encouraged by the PTI,” he main­tained. “Individuals facing violence by the state, including tear gas shelling, re­sponded on their own in self-defense and in order to mitigate the damage caused by teargas,” the PTI chief said.

During the hearing, CJP Bandial had noted that the court had moved carefully in this case. “Even now we are exercising great restraint,” he added. The chief jus­tice had further remarked that the judg­es did not want their pen to be ‘misused’.

Faisal Fareed reply refuted the asser­tions in para-3 of the Criminal Original Application of the federal government for being surmises and conjectures.