Think, resubmit reply by 8th, IHC tells Imran

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) directed Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan on Wednesday to resubmit a “well-thought-out” response within the next seven days in the contempt of court case, being heard against him for threatening a female judge.

A five-member bench comprising IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri and Justice Babar Sattar heard the case.

In response to the IHC’s show-cause notice in the case, the PTI chairman did not apologise for allegedly threatening additional sessions judge of Islamabad, Zeba Chaudhry, offering, however, to withdraw his remarks “if they were inappropriate”.

The IHC CJ, during the hearing, said he was “disappointed” by the response of Khan in the case. He asked him to review his response and submit it once more. Without asking Khan to come to the rostrum, the court adjourned the hearing and ordered that the response could be submitted through the PTI chairman’s counsel.

At the outset of the hearing, Khan’s lawyer Hamid Khan came forward and took the rostrum. IHC CJ Minallah told him that although he was Khan’s lawyer, he was also there to assist the court.

“I did not expect this from you,” the IHC CJ said in response to the reply that the lawyer submitted on behalf of Khan. IHC CJ Minallah noted that a political party should always believe in upholding the law and the Constitution. “In the last 70 years, a common man has not been able to make it to the high courts, and the Supreme Court.”

The IHC CJ said that he was “disappointed” by the response that Khan submitted in response to the show-cause notice. “The response that was submitted did not suit the stature of a political leader like [Imran] Khan,” remarked the chief justice.

Justice Minallah said that he hoped that the PTI chairman would boost the court’s confidence; however, it should be noted that just like “the time that passes by cannot come back, the words uttered by one cannot be taken back”.

The court said that Khan is a popular leader and has a massive following; therefore, he should think before he speaks. “I was expecting that he [Khan] might come to terms with the fact that he has done something wrong. A political leader has several followers; they should think before they speak.”

“Through your response, I feel that Imran Khan has not realised that he has done anything wrong,” the IHC CJ told the PTI chairman’s lawyer. In the last three years — during PTI’s tenure — the IHC raised the issue of torture without any fear, noting that the state encouraged torture in the last 70 years.

“Torture, at any level, cannot be allowed. Is there a worse form of torture than making someone disappear?” the court asked, as the PTI keeps claiming that party leader Shahbaz Gill was tortured by the police.

Taking forward the PTI’s claims, Khan had criticised an additional district and sessions judge for rejecting the bail plea of Gill earlier this month. Justice Minallah asked who had the [administrative] control of Adiala Jail where Gill was imprisoned for a few days. “If there’s even a small complaint of torture, whether the jail authorities can imprison a person without his medical examination?”

The IHC CJ remarked that the PTI should look at the cases of journalists Asad Toor and Absar Alam. He added that during the last three years, the IHC sent such matters to the PTI’s federal cabinet.

“I wish they would have raised their voice in that regard also.” During the proceedings, Islamabad Advocate-General Jahangir Jadoon tried to speak, but was stopped. “This matter is between the person who has allegedly committed contempt of court, and the court.”

The IHC CJ then asked when the high court wrapped up the case of the alleged torture of Gill and when the speech was made. At this, Khan’s counsel said that the court concluded the case on August 22 and the PTI chairman delivered the speech on August 20.

“The matter was already pending in the IHC while he made the speech. “It was expected of you to go to the court of the [female] judge before coming here, assured her that you have complete confidence in her, and exhibited through your conduct that you believe in supremacy of the law.

“You should read Firdous Ashiq Awan’s judgement. Under PECA ordinance, the person speaking against institutions will not even get bail for six months,” Justice Minallah remarked. Half of Pakistanis would have gone behind bars had that ordinance not been nullified, added the IHC CJ.

This court, the IHC CJ said, nullified the PECA ordinance and then a smear campaign was started against it. “However, the courts never care about criticism.”

Moving on, Justice Minallah said that Khan keeps asking why the courts were opened at 12am — during the National Assembly’s vote of no-confidence against the ex-premier in April.

“This court will remain open for the weak 24/7. However, the courts do not need to justify before anyone as to why and when they were opened.

“The case of contempt of court is very serious,” he said, noting that the courts opening at 12am was a very clear message that they did not want the repetition of October 12, 1999 — the day when former dictator Gen Pervez Musharraf imposed a martial law.

The IHC CJ then said that political leaders are misusing the social media, as photos of him and a judge of the Supreme Court were made viral and they were termed leaders of a political party.

“Wrong information was shared regarding a flat registered against my name in a foreign country,” he said, adding that his institution had also committed several mistakes.

The IHC CJ said that political parties did not prohibit their followers from uploading such posts. “If a leader tells their workers to stop, this will indeed stop.”

In response, Khan’s counsel asked whether he could speak.

The lawyer said that he was aware that the court was disappointed by the response, but noted that the petition raised general legal points.

“However, I do not want to raise them now.”

The IHC CJ then said that this was an open court and everything happening over here is transparent and that he would not allow contempt of court proceedings to be misused.

The court then said that this case also includes the matter pertaining to freedom of speech.

The lawyer then argued that he had also raised the point of dismissing the case as Khan had no intention of saying something like that against the judge. He, in fact, got emotional after learning about torture of Shahbaz Gill, clarified the lawyer.

The court then noted that the matter of Gill’s torture was already being heard at the IHC. “Check the record, then submit your response again, otherwise this court will take the matter forward.

“This matter is very serious, the contempt of court proceedings could have ended today, but these have not due to the response that was submitted.”

During the course of proceedings, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb remarked that Imran Khan has been given another chance to submit a reply to the show-cause notice.

“This court cannot go against the verdicts of the Supreme Court,” remarked Justice Minallah and advised Khan’s counsel to understand the seriousness of the matter and submit a reply carefully.

The LHC CJ remarked that judges of the subordinate judiciary were also as important as those of the higher judiciary. “Judges of lower judiciary were not any Mr X and Mr Y that you say against them whatever you want.

“Change will come in this country only when all institutions do their work according to the Constitution,” noted the IHC CJ.

At this, Hamid Khan said that his client had no intention to say this about the judicial officer. Justice Minallah said that the only concern of the court is the independence of the judiciary, including the subordinate judiciary, and directed the lawyer to read out three verdicts of the SC in that regard.

The court ordered Imran Khan to submit his reply to the show-cause notice within seven days again. During the proceedings, Khan’s counsel suggested appointing Munir A Malik as a judicial assistant.

Replying to the lawyer, the CJ said that the nation was divided and asked him to name a person with such a reputation that he was acceptable to everyone. The attorney general, however, suggested the name of Makhdoom Ali Khan.

Justice Minallah told the attorney general that the incumbent government was also making sedition and treason cases, and directed the representative of the federal government to review the cases.

The proceedings could have been concluded today but they will have to continue after that reply, remarked Justice Aurangzeb.

“You accuse us that Pakistan’s judiciary ranks 130th in the world,” Justice Minallah said, adding that they had told Fawad Chaudhry in a case that the number was of the executive.

During case proceedings, the attorney general told the court that Fawad Chaudhry had said that the chief justice should seek an apology. To this, counsel for Imran Khan said “we have nothing to do with these remarks”. Hamid Khan also added spontaneously that “nothing good was expected of that guy”.

Imran Khan was also amused by the comment of his lawyer. Meanwhile, the IHC adjourned the hearing till September 8.

A day earlier, Imran Khan had offered to take back his words against a district and sessions judge. The PTI chairman did not apologise for threatening additional sessions judge of Islamabad, offering, however, to withdraw his remarks “if they were inappropriate.”

“As someone who believes in rule of law and a strong independent justice system, the respondent does not believe in hurting the feelings of honourable judges. “The respondent submits with humility that if words he uttered are regarded as inappropriate, he is willing to take them back,” he said, urging the court to evaluate the speech within the context it was made.

Khan added that his remarks against the additional sessions judge were not obstruction of justice, nor were they intended to undermine the integrity and credibility of the judicial system.

Sabah News adds: Imran Khan, meanwhile, parried almost all questions about tendering an apology over his threatening remarks against a female judge. On insistence for a reply by reporters, he asked them what they suggest what he should do.

He also expressed his astonishment over presence of such a large number of law-enforcers during his appearance in the court.

When a report asked the former premier why he said he had turned very dangerous, he clarifies that the reply was meant for a pestering journalist. Imran said that there was a reporter who tried to provoke him by asking annoying questions. “I had told that reporter ‘I am very dangerous’,” clarified the PTI chairman.

Imran Khan also said he was seeing general election in near future. INP adds: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Wednesday served notices in a petition, filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan to abolish terrorism case against him for allegedly threatening a female judge and Islamabad police officials.

A division bench comprising IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Saman Rafat heard the case and served notices on the respondents in the case for Sept 8.

On Tuesday, Imran Khan moved the IHC for dismissal of terrorism case registered for allegedly threatening IG Islamabad, DIG and female magistrate, and all three along with the SHO were made respondents in the petition.

Imran Khan stated that he had served as prime minister of the country and was the captain of Pakistan team, which won the World Cup. Efforts were made to establish peace in the country, while the US withdrawal from Afghanistan was ensured, the former premier said, adding that the PTI-led government took measures to cope with economic issues amid the Coronavirus pandemic.

He pointed out that the government had registered a terrorism case against him on a statement about IGP, DIG and a female magistrate. Imran said he had asked for legal action against the three personalities, urging that the terrorism case against him should be declared illegal.