ISLAMABAD: The government is firmly committed to pursuing the contempt case against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Amir Rehman informed the Supreme Court during a hearing on the contempt plea related to the party's May 25, 2022, long march.
The federal government had filed the plea against the alleged violation of court's orders linked to the protest call.
The hearing was conducted by a seven-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.
During the hearing, Justice Aminuddin questioned whether the government genuinely intended to pursue the petition. The AAG responded affirmatively, saying that the government sought a serious hearing on the matter.
Rehman further argued that the PTI founder violated a court order during the long march on May 25, 2022.
Justice Aminuddin remarked that if the court issued a notice, the PTI founder would have to appear in person and instructed the additional attorney general to seek guidance on presenting the jailed former prime minister in court.
Justice Mandokhail emphasised that contempt cases are strictly between the court and the accused, urging the parties not to become emotional as the court was offering a clear path forward.
Salman Akram Raja, counsel for the PTI founder, informed the court that his client had already submitted a response. He contended that the court’s verbal order had not reached the PTI founder, partly due to the disruption of mobile services, which had hindered communication between the legal team and their client.
Justice Hilali inquired whether a notice had been served to the PTI founder. In response, Raja clarified that his client had filed the response only after receiving the notice.
The constitutional bench subsequently adjourned the hearing indefinitely.
The cricketer-turned-politician gave his supporters a call to march to Islamabad to demand dissolution of assemblies and a date for elections following his ouster via a no-confidence motion by the multiple party alliance — Pakistan Democtratic Movement earlier that year.
In a separate case on the PTI founder's plea to form a judicial commission to probe the May 9, 2023, violence, his lawyer Hamid Khan appeared before the constitutional bench and took to the rostrum.
He urged the court to investigate the events of May 9, saying that more than a year and a half had passed without clarity on what transpired that day.
Hamid pointed out that hundreds of cases were registered after May 9, claiming that an entire political party was being marginalised.
Justice Mandokhail questioned why the petitioner had not approached the high court, to which Hamid responded that the matter was of national significance, necessitating a Supreme Court hearing.
Mandokhail added that the Registrar’s Office had raised objections, claiming it was not a matter of public interest.
Justice Aminuddin noted that the objections of the Registrar’s Office seemed valid but allowed the petitioner to explain. Hamid assured the court that once the objections were addressed, he would provide arguments on the merits of the case.
The constitutional bench subsequently overruled the Registrar’s objections, but Justice Aminuddin reminded the lawyer that he would need to satisfy the court on the substantive questions when the case is rescheduled.
AAG Rehman also highlighted that the petition’s claim of public interest was yet to be argued. Justice Aminuddin clarified that the current proceedings were only addressing procedural objections and not the merits of the case.
The court acknowledged the urgency expressed by various parties but adjourned the hearing indefinitely.
Justice Mandokhail emphasised that legal matters, such as the FIRs, would ultimately be decided by the courts.
Justice Hilali added that even if a judicial commission were established, it would only determine responsibility, and its report would not impact ongoing criminal cases.
The hearing of the case concerning the trial of civilians in military courts took place before the same seven-member constitutional bench.
The AAG requested an adjournment, citing the unavailability of Khawaja Haris, the counsel for the Ministry of Defence, due to health issues.
Rehman informed the court that Haris was unable to attend due to a stomach ailment. Accepting the request, the constitutional bench adjourned the hearing until Thursday.
During the proceedings, advocate Latif Khosa’s request to transfer detained individuals to regular prisons was rejected.
However, Justice Aminuddin noted that arrangements could be made to allow the detainees to meet their families, as previously assured by the Attorney General.
Justice Aminuddin also advised Khosa to remain focused on the ongoing case, instructing him not to deviate from the matter under consideration.
Groups involved have an ongoing dispute over commercial plaza, says CCPO
President Zardari, PM Shehbaz condemn blast; sources say outlawed BLA claimed responsibility for attack
"A few lawyers took money, and there should definitely be an audit of the fees paid," says Marwat
Weather expert says wet spell can increase intensity of prevailing cold starting today
One FC personnel, one cop and three civilians also come under attack targetting DC Javedullah Mehsud
Injured have been transported to trauma centre at Civil Hospital Karachi for medical treatment
