On Thursday, the Islamabad High Court decided to confront the former prime minister and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan in a contempt case on 22 September. However, the court said that his response was too inappropriate and not satisfying at all.
Islamabad High Court:
The five-member larger bench of the IHC headed by Chief Justice Athar Minallah, and also including Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, and Justice Babar Sattar announced its take.
The Islamabad High Court on Tuesday heard the contempt of court case against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan for his remarks against Additional Sessions Judge Zeba Chaudhry.
The bench observed that there is no need to proceed further as Agha has stated that Imran has tendered an apology and had not mentioned any name in his speech.
Akhtar Hussain, a representative of the Pakistan Bar Council, also pleaded with the high court to allow Imran one more chance to provide an unreserved apology. But the IHC opted to charge him overwhelmingly.
Imran’s additional response in the infringement case was met with disapproval with the IHC, which referred to the party leader’s remarks as “incitement.”
With his attorney Hamid Khan by his side, the former PM attended the hearing. Hamid referred to Imran’s case-related testimony and added, “As per the judge’s remark, we have provided the reply.”
The former premier responded in writing for a second attempt yesterday to the IHC’s show-cause letter, stating his genuine regret for his “unintended” comments regarding the judge.
The PTI chairman had stated that it would be acceptable to apologise to the court for his or her statements. As stated in the judge’s formal response, Hamid insisted that his client needed the case to be concluded.
Additionally, he claimed that the court had turned over Daniyal Aziz and Talal Chaudhry’s cases at the hearing on August 31. He continued by saying that he will explain how Imran’s case was unique compared to prior Supreme Court rulings.
He added, “I will also bring the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Imran Khan matter before the court.
The goal, according to IHC CJ Minallah, was to draw attention to three Judicial Decisions, that the Talal Chaudhry incident did not involve criminal court contempt, and that the Firdous Ashiq Awan matter listed three different categories of court disrespect.
Reiterating that criminal court misconduct was severe and that purpose could not be indicated in it, further added the chief justice.
Insisting that the high court was constrained by the rulings of the supreme court, CJ Minallah claimed that disorderly conduct charges against Daniyal Aziz or Talal Chaudhry had not been filed.
Imran’s attorney reiterated their desire to put this case to rest and said that they had treated the documents with the highest respect while submitting them. A thorough reply was submitted once the court was given another chance, according to Hamid.
Criminal disobedience is a terrible offense that has no justification, according to Justice Minallah. Despite the fact that we support free speech, he continued, “incitement cannot be tolerated. In official misconduct, you cannot justify your intentions.”
Hamid read a portion of a Supreme Court case at the court’s request.
The client of Hamid, Hamid, respected both the superior and lower courts equally.
The court may not have known about it in the Firdous Ashiq Awan case, but CJ Minallah cautioned against using that defence at this time since it would not be helpful. Additionally, he inquired as to whether the PTI leader had stated that social networks cannot be abused.
Imran said in his response that he was aware that the petition had already been filed, according to Justice Sattar.
The PTI has threatened the court ever since the case’s legal proceedings began, the chief justice said in response to the judicial assistant.
The behavior that ought to have been evident following the contempt of court proceedings wasn’t there, the chief justice declared.
Would you like us to accept their justification?
Khan argued that the court ought to grant Imran in the case some breathing room. The judicial assistant was then asked by the court for his opinion, to which he responded that Imran’s filed reply ought to be allowed.
Khan concluded his argument by saying, “Remorse has been conveyed in this case, and the court can give Imran one chance.”
