ISLAMABAD      -          The Supreme Court on Friday directed Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan to submit a response to the federal government’s application, which presented material to prove that he (Imran) was aware of the May 25 order before his announcement to reach D-Chowk in Islamabad. A five-member larger bench of the court headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi heard the contempt of court case. The federal government, through the interior ministry, had filed petition for initiating contempt of court proceedings against Imran Khan for violating its May 25 order, wherein the PTI was restricted from holding its long march near the H-9 and G-9 areas of Islamabad. However, Imran Khan made his way towards D-Chowk. During the course of proceedings, the chief justice said that the bench hoped Imran Khan’s lawyer would submit correct details. The Supreme Court used its jurisdiction carefully and it could not issue any order on any expectation, he added. He said that the court was very conscious about exercising the contempt jurisdiction, but maintained that he was aware of the court’s directions not being obeyed. Additional Attorney General (AAG) Amir Rehman requested that Imran Khan should be required to follow the law if the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) administration allowed the PTI to hold its march in Islamabad. Advocate Salman Aslam Butt counsel for the Interior Ministry said that there were a few things which could not be presented in the court. The court formed a committee whose names were presented to the court, he added. Justice Ijaz remarked that at that time the bench had sought names from the parties regarding holding the procession at H-9 ground. The names were submitted before the court after stipulated time and it was also stated that jammers were present at that time, he added. Salman Aslam Butt, called for the bench to pass directions for obtaining call direct records (CDRs) in order to verify that phones were working in the area where Imran’s convoy was protesting on May 25. At that time, all information was available on social media, he added. Justice Mazahar Naqvi asked how the CDRs would be helpful. He questioned how the May 25 order was communicated to Imran Khan as the PTI chief may not have been in possession of his phone at the time. Salman Butt said that Imran Khan was holding a mobile phone in his hand during the protest. Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that the order that was given at that time was circulated within half an hour. He said that the court would hear arguments of Imran Khan’s counsel instead of the articles written in the newspapers. CJP Bandial asked from Imran’s lawyer; “You have presented an argument that the court order was spread in the country through media and social media?” At this, Raja said that the court orders went viral on social media after some time. The CJP observed that Imran Khan announced going to D Chowk 40 minutes after the court order. He remarked that the apex court shows restraint in using its powers relating to the contempt, saying that the court only takes action when its orders are violated. Justice Bandial said, “We are not issuing any order at the moment.” He also said that Khan has submitted a detailed reply and hoped that it is correct and based on facts. Salman Butt said that the question was whether mobiles were working on the container or not. “My answer is that there were mobile towers operating near the containers at that time,” he added. On this, the chief justice said that in this matter the bench had to consider carefully before proceeding further. The court remarked that the petitioner submitted an application detailing the contacts. A reply was filed last night to which the opposing party needs time to respond, it added. The bench remarked that the counsel for the opposite party should submit his reply and the USB produced before the court should also be provided to the opposite party. Subsequently, hearing of the case was adjourned for one week.