PTI hate speech case: SC asks petitioner to explain how his rights were violated

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Thursday questioned as to how the apex court could invoke its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution for an individual.

A two-member bench of the apex court — comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Yahya Afridi — heard the petition seeking action against former prime minister and PTI Chairman Imran Khan and other leaders for inciting the people against the state institutions.

The court directed the petitioner to make preparation and satisfy it as to how his fundamental rights had been infringed upon.

During the course of hearing, Justice Yahya Afridi questioned as to how the apex court could invoke its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution for an individual. The judge observed that the apex court could exercise its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution whenever it considered it appropriate.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked the counsel as to why the apex court could hear this matter. “Whether the court should now initiate proceedings on somebody’s image that may be tarnished”, Justice Ahsan asked the petitioner.

“Why you did not provide the court with transcript and CDs of the statements?” Justice Ahsan asked the petitioner adding that the statements must have been reported by the media. Justice Ahsan observed that nowadays only few people were reporting correctly.

“So convince us as to why the court should interfere in such matters”, Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked the petitioner. Justice Yahya Afridi questioned whether the higher judiciary could be weakened due to such type of statements.

“The apex court has the jurisdiction under Article 204 of the Constitution to initiate contempt proceedings against anyone for ridiculing the judiciary,” Justice Yahya Afridi told the petitioner.

“Your job was to inform the court. You did that and that is it”, Justice Afridi told the petitioner adding that it would have been better for him if he had approached some other forum for seeking relief. Meanwhile, the court asked the petitioner to submit his reply on the question of maintainability of his instant petition and adjourned the hearing until first week of September.