Abb Takk News

IHC Declares Imran Khan Reply Unsatisfactory In Contempt Of Court Case

Islamabad: Islamabad High Court (IHC) today Thursday declared Imran Khan response in the contempt of court case unsatisfactory and he will be indicted in the case on September 22.

CJ Minallah is heading a five-member bench — comprising Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangir, and Justice Babar Sattar — that heard the case.

The CJ IHC Athar Minallah questioned that if you were used same tone and words for a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan then will you submit such reply?

Athar Minallah questioned again, Had the former premier cited a reason that he was not aware of the law?

The CJ said that we are protector of freedom of expression but the escalation can not be allowed.

the court took a five-minute break after the reservation of the verdict, Khan got up and asked the court if he could speak. At this, the IHC CJ said that the court had heard his lawyers.

“I want to give my stance; the court can question me,” Khan said, but the court preferred to let it be and decided against listening to the PTI chairman.

The court rejected the PTI chief insistence to appear on the rostrum.

The court assistant Makhdom Ali Khan said that if public interest lies in provision of justice then it is also lies in the freedom of expression as well.

Justice Baber remarked that we are hearing the case for the independence of the district courts instead of our respect and esteem.

Assistant of the court Akhtar Hussain supported the show-cause notice to ex-premier. He said that in a tough time unintentional words uttered, it is said that the part leader was arrested and tortured while unconditional apology was also not sought in a supplementary response

The arguments of all the court assistants completed as well as all the respondents.

Chief Justice Athar Minallah thanked the court assistants.

Expressing his disappointment in the response given by Khan to the court the court asked: “Even after the court’s input on the matter, this is the response submitted?”

“It seems you want to fight this case […] and you have no realisation that the case against you is extremely seriously,” noted Justice Minallah.

The court regretted that Khan, instead, is constantly attempting to “justify” his actions.

The PTI chief appeared before a five-member IHC bench amid strict security measures in place in and around the premises of the court, including the deployment of 788 cops under the supervision of two superintendents of police.

Moreover, the ways leading to the court have been barricaded with barbed wires, while the availability of tear gas shells and an armoured vehicle has also been ensured to deal with any untoward situation.

At the start of the hearing, Imran Khan’s lawyer Hamid Khan started arguments, saying that he agrees with the observation given by the court at the last hearing and wants to put precise requests before the court.

“We want to wind up this matter,” he said, informing the court that a detailed reply has been submitted.

The lawyer contended that the IHC referred to two verdicts of the Supreme Court, which were issued in the cases of Daniyal Aziz and Talal Chaudhry.

“Imran Khan’s case doesn’t fall under these two verdicts. The two cases were totally different from that of Imran Khan,” he maintained.

At this, CJ Minallah remarked that there are three types of contempt of court, described in the Firdous Ashiq Awan case which was a matter of scandalising the court.

“There is civil contempt of court, the second is judicial contempt and the third criminal contempt,” he said.

The IHC CJ said that action under criminal contempt of court wasn’t taken in Daniyal Aziz and Talal Chaudhry cases.

“This is criminal contempt which is related to an under-trial case,” he added.

CJ Minallah said without mentioning Imran Khan that [PTI] supporters were provoked against a female judge.

He said that the court has clearly informed the defence about the gravity of the matter.

“What if anything happens to the judge?” he asked.

Meanwhile, Justice Sattar remarked how a political leader could say that he would take action against a judge while speaking at a public gathering.

“There is a separate forum for an action against a judge but that’s not a public rally,” he said.

At this, Imran’s counsel, maintained that the PTI chair missed the word “legal” while saying he’ll take action against the judge.

“Legal action also translates into a complaint,” he said.

IHC CJ Minallah warned Imran Khan that threatening a district judge is a more serious offence than a Supreme Court justice.

The CJ asked can the former prime minister give an excuse for his ignorance.

“The offence is very serious which has not been realised,” remarked Justice Minallah, saying they only have to look at the law.

At this, Hamid said that they have realised, hence, they mentioned it in their written response.

The judge asked if their reply was appropriate in light of the SC’s verdicts.

No one can pressurise the court, observed the CJ.

Hamid clarified that Khan wrote in his reply that he respects the district and the apex court. He maintained that his client had made the statement due to the alleged torture of Shahbaz Gill.

Then, Khan requested his counsel to seek the court’s permission for letting him speak.

“Imran Khan wants to give an explanation of his speech from the day before yesterday,” Hamid said, adding that the reference given in the court regarding his speech was based on misreporting.

The IHC CJ said it would be played later in the courtroom. He added that in PML-N leader Nehal Hashmi’s case, despite him not naming any judge, he was convicted.

“However, Imran Khan’s speech is completely different,” Hamid told the bench. IHC CJ Minallah said that threatening a district judge is a much more serious offence than threatening a top court judge. “Had you issued such statements against us, we would have never taken notice of that.”

Khan’s counsel said that he had never opined that lower courts deserved lesser respect, rather that he respected all the courts.

Then Justice Sattar asked that if Khan does not like the judgement of this court, then will he start issuing such statements against the bench. “If you don’t like order, then will you keep responding in this manner? Does only your lawyer understand what you said and no one else?”

Justice Sattar said that maybe Khan does not understand the gravity of the consequences as he submitted a weak response.

IHC CJ also voiced Justice Sattar, saying that a huge responsibility falls on the leaders of political parties as they have a massive following.

Just hours before the hearing, Khan filed a new miscellaneous plea seeking permission to submit written arguments.