ISLAMABAD - The registrar office of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) Friday sent the show-cause notices to all the respondents in the case related to the allegations of former chief judge of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) Justice (retd) Rana Shamim against former Chief Justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar.
In this connection, a single bench of IHC, comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Athar Minallah had conducted hearing of the case and directed to issue show cause notices to Jang Group’s Editor in Chief Shakil ur Rehman, Editor Aamir Ghouri, Ansar Abbasi and former Chief Judge of the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit Baltistan, Rana Mohammad Shamim.
The show-cause notices issued to Ansar Abbasi stated that a news item was reported and published on Monday titled Saqib Nisar directed not to release Nawaz, Maryam before 2018 elections which referred to a purported affidavit sworn by Justice (retd) Rana Mohammad Shamim.
It added that the content of the purported affidavit related to appeals pending before this court and which were fixed for hearing before a division bench of this court on November 17 and you filed the news report with the knowledge that it relates to a sub judice matter.
The notice added that the purported affidavit was not part of the judicial record of this court or of any other judicial forum and you published the content of the purported affidavit with the intent of disseminating it widely amongst public-at-large.
“The content of the news report based on the purported affidavit cast unfounded scandalous aspersions on the independence, impartiality and integrity of this court and all its judges,” said the notice.
It added that the publishing of the news report without verifying the truth of the account presented as fact appears to be not only in disregard of the editorial and journalistic principles and tenets but also in disregard of the fundamental rights of citizens who are party to the judicial proceedings pending before the court and their right to be judged through a fair trial and due process in accordance with law, without such rights being prejudiced and prejudged through a media trial.
It maintained, “The aforementioned acts, prima facie, amount to committing criminal contempt punishable under the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, read with Article 204 of the Constitution.”
Therefore, it directed the respondents to submit their reply within seven days and appear in person on November 30 to explain why they may not be punished for committing criminal contempt under section 5 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003.
