The court took apart Khan’s preliminary reply to the show cause notice for contempt of court over inflammatory remarks, and gave him seven days to file his supplementary reply.
By Naveed Naqvi
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Wednesday voiced its deep dissatisfaction with the preliminary response filed by former Prime Minister Imran Khan in a contempt of court case, and ordered him to file his supplementary response in seven days.
Heading a five-member larger bench of the court, Chief Justice IHC Justice Athar Minallah voiced his utter disappointment over the position taken by Khan in his 10-page written response, saying he expected the head of a political party to do better.
The matter concerns remarks made by Khan from the podium at a charged rally in Islamabad on August 20, 2022, in which he threatened Additional District and Sessions Judge Zeba Chaudhry of unspecified action.
Khan had issued similar threats to the Inspector General of Islamabad Territory Police and his Deputy. He had called the rally in protest over Judge Chaudhry’s verdict to send his chief of staff Shahbaz Gill, detained on charges of incitement to mutiny in the armed forces, in investigative custody.
Khan entered the court premises two minutes shy of 2:30 pm, the time appointed for today’s hearing, accompanied by his key lieutenant including Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Senator Faisal Javed Khan. His found his legal team waiting in front of Court Room No. 1.
When the court proceeding began and Senior Advocate Hamid Khan took the stand representing the chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Justice Minallah reminded him that he was not just the counsel of Imran Khan but also an assistant of the court.
Arguing that a leader of Imran Khan’s stature should utter his every word after due consideration, Justice Minallah said that he did not expect Khan to issue a statement targeting a subordinate judge.
Maintaining that the subordinate judiciary was working in difficult conditions for the relief to the citizenry, who had no access to higher judiciary, the Chief Justice said he had expected Khan’s response to reflect he had realised his error, but this was not the case.
Referring to Khan’s grievance of torture on Gill, Justice Minallah said there could be no greater torture than being disappeared. He maintained that there was no ambiguity in the cases of Absar Alam and Asad Toor cases.
He lamented that the IHC had kept referring all such cases to the federal cabinet led by Khan for the three years, but he had failed to take cognizance of the matter. Had the matter of torture been resolve back then, it would not have arisen today.
The Chief Justice also reminded Khan that he had delivered his offending remarks at a time when the subject matter was sub judice and therefore prohibited from public discussion.
At one point, when Advocate General Jahangir Jadoon started to say something, the court told him to keep his silence as the matter was between the court and the contemnor.
Interrogating Khan over his offending tirade, the court was askance as to who had administrative control of [the Rawalpindi Central Jail at] Adiala – where Gill was kept when Khan was making a ruckus about torture on him.
He was clearly alluding to the fact that the Prisons being a provincial subject, Adiala was controlled by Punjab Chief Minister Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, an ally of Khan.
Justice Minallah was also askance as to how jail authorities could accept a detainee without complete medical check-up if there was a complaint of torture.
The court rejected Khan’s plea to discharge the show cause notice issued him, but granted his request to allow another week to file a supplementary reply, ordering the court to be relisted on September 8, 2022 for 2:30 pm.
The court appointed senior advocates Munir A Malik and Makhdoom Ali Khan, along with a nominee of Pakistan Bar Council, as Amici Curiae in the case to assist it.
Besides Justice Minallah, the bench includes Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, Justice Babar Sattar, and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri.
Attorney General for Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf represented the state at the hearing, aided by Deputy Attorney General Mian M Faisal Irfan, Additional Attorney General Iqbal Duggal, Advocate General Jahangir Jadoon, State Counsels Khadija Ali and Rabi Bin Tariq, Amir Rehman and Hafiz Munawar.
Senior Advocate Hamid Khan, who represented respondent Imran Khan was aided by Barrister Salman Safdar, Niaz Ullah Niazi, Shoaib Shaheen, Muhammad Waqar Rana, Ajmal Ghaffar Toor, Mazhar Ali Haider, and Fahad Arslan Chaudhry.
Copyright © 2021 Independent Pakistan | All rights reserved
