Supreme Court again declines govt request for order against long march

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday again declined the request of the federal government to issue an order against the PTI’s long march. 

A five-member larger bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, and Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, heard the contempt petition filed by the Interior Ministry.

On Friday, Additional Attorney-General Aamir Rehman told the court that as the leadership of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf is bringing a long march to Islamabad, it should be directed to remain peaceful and abide by the law.

“Have you seen our previous order wherein one of our colleagues has dissented? Therefore, in contempt proceedings, we can’t issue any such order,” the chief justice said.

“But let us ask the counsel for the PTI leadership to ask his client to follow the law,” the chief justice added.

Salman Akram Raja, counsel for PTI Chairman Imran Khan, submitted that he has received no instructions in this regard from his client.

“Do you expect that your client will not follow the law?” the chief justice asked the learned counsel. “No, not all, my lord,” Salman Akram Raja replied.

“We cannot pass an executive order in the contempt proceedings as we are very cautious in this instant matter,” the CJP remarked but added that they also do not want their order to be violated. During the proceedings on Friday, the court gave time to Salman Akram Raja, counsel for PTI Chairman Imran Khan, to furnish his reply to the evidence submitted by the Ministry of Interior in response to the reply recently submitted by former prime minister Imran Khan.

Salman Aslam Butt, counsel for the Ministry of Interior, appeared before the court and submitted that he had filed the reply as well as a USB on Thursday night in response to the reply submitted by the PTI chairman, adding that a copy of the reply was also provided to the respondent’s (Imran Khan’s) counsel.

Salman Akram Raja, counsel for PTI Chairman Imran Khan, told the court that he did not get the USB copy.

The counsel for the Ministry of Interior submitted that the USB proved that the target of the long march on May 25 was to reach the D-Chowk, adding that it also proved that mobile service remained active on the day.

He claimed that tweets and posts were made by the PTI leadership consecutively on social media from the container on May 25, adding that this all could be verified from the call data record (CDR).

However, Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi stated that the CDR is meaningless and that judicial proceedings are protected by law.

“If the other side contradicts the details of CDR by claiming that he was not holding a mobile phone at that time, then what will happen?” stated Justice Naqvi, advising the counsel to research the law concerning Qannoon-i-Shahadat.

“He may contradict it, but it should be looked into whether the phone was working in the container or not,” Salman Aslam Butt submitted, adding that the evidence furnished before the court clearly shows that the mobile phone was in Khan’s hand.

The counsel submitted that the court, if it considered it appropriate, could call the CDR, which would show from which mobile phone the respondent was operating.

“Let’s go step by step; we have to remain calm but not sentimental,” the CJP told the Interior Ministry counsel, adding that the respondent (Imran Khan) has submitted his reply, and he hoped that he might have filed it correctly and based on facts.

The chief justice asked the counsel for the Ministry of Interior he claimed that the court’s order of May 25 was spread through the media and on social media across the country.

The counsel for Imran Khan, however, contended that the court’s order went viral on social media after some time. The chief justice said that the order passed by the court came after an hour, was received by the respondent (Imran Khan), and then announced at the rally.

“Salman Akram Raja could provide a better explanation whether there were perceptions that blockades were made for the rally on that day,” the CJP said.

Justice Ijazul Ahsen, another member of the bench, said that he could recall that they had summoned the Islamabad IGP, who had also submitted that due to shortage of time, they could not ensure the provision of security to the participants in the rally.

Meanwhile, while dictating the order, the court noted that the petitioner, the Ministry of Interior, had submitted evidence, including the USB, about the issue namely the communication of the court’s order and the respondent’s action (Imran Khan) and his colleagues.

The court directed the Ministry of Interior’s counsel to provide a copy of the USB to Salman Akram Raja, counsel for the PTI chairman.

The court also stated in its order that the Ministry of Interior provides a copy of its response as well as a USB to the PTI chairman’s other counsel.

The court further noted that the counsel for the respondent (Imran Khan) also sought an opportunity to submit his reply to the evidence provided by the Ministry of Interior.

Similarly, the court also noted in its order that the Ministry of Interior might also file a rebuttal to the reply after the PTI counsel submits his reply. Later, the court adjourned the hearing for a week.