Web Desk (LTN NEWS): Imran Khan, the chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), was charged with contempt of court on Thursday after making contentious comments against a female judge at a rally in Islamabad on August 20. The decision was made by a five-member bigger bench of IHC.
Judges of Case
The case was considered by a five-judge panel that included Chief Justice of the IHC Athar Minallah, Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, Tariq Mehmood Jahangir, and Babar Sattar.
Imran Khan’s reaction was deemed unsatisfactory by IHC CJ Athar Minallah since he did not make an unqualified apology.
Imran Khan requested to speak
After the judgement was reserved and the court had a five-minute pause, Imran Khan stood up and requested permission to speak. IHC CJ then stated that the court had heard his attorneys.
Imran Khan remarked, “I want to give my perspective; the court can interrogate me.”
However, the court choose to let it go and chose not to pay attention to Imran Khan.
Imran Khan did not apologize in his initial response to the IHC show-cause notice in the matter, but he did offer to retract his comments “if they were incorrect.”
19-page response of Imran Khan
Imran Khan most recent response, a 19-page letter, appears to have chosen to instruct the court to dismiss the show-cause notice in light of his justification and Islamic forgiveness principles.
Although amici curiae recommended that Imran Khan be pardoned, in both responses the PTI chairman did not make an unqualified apology, which ultimately led to the court making the decision.
The hearing
IHC reprimanded Imran Khan during the hearing for claiming that former Prime Minister constantly justifies his behavior in a case involving insulting remarks he made about a magistrate during a rally speech.
Athar Minallah, chief justice of IHC, said, “It seems you are unaware of the seriousness of the situation.”
The court expressed his disapproval with Imran Khan’s second response to the court, asking: “Even after the court’s input on the problem, this is the response submitted?”
Justice Minallah remarked, “It appears you wish to defend this matter […] and you have no realization that the case against you is really severe.”
Justice Sattar observed that Imran Khan used “threatening” language in his remarks, that he had “no regret,” and that recent comments also appear to indicate that he has “no remorse.”
Instead, Imran Khan continuously tries to “justify” his behavior, which the court regrets.
‘Criminal contempt’
IHC CJ continued by stating that no legal action was taken in the Talal Chaudhry and Danyal Aziz cases for criminal contempt of court.
He continued, “This [Imran Khan’s case] is criminal contempt, which is connected to an ongoing case.”
Without identifying Imran Khan, CJ Minallah claimed that PTI supporters had been incited against a female judge.
He claimed that the court had made it obvious to the defense how serious the situation was.
He questioned, “What if anything happens to the judge?”
Justice Sattar questioned how a political figure could threaten to remove a judge while speaking in front of a large crowd.
“An action against a judge has a separate forum, but that’s not a public demonstration,” he said.
When Imran Khan said he would take action against the judge, Imran’s attorney, Hamid Khan, insisted that he had missed the word “legal” in his statement.
“Legal action also translates into a complaint,” he said.
Justice Sattar responded to the argument by questioning how a leader could threaten to take “legal action” against a judge.
He declared, “There is a procedure for suing a judge.”
A “Red Line”
IHC CJ Minallah called subordinate judiciary a “red line,” and cautioned the PTI chairman Imran Khan that threatening a district judge is a more serious offense than threatening a justice of the Supreme Court.
CJ expressed his disapproval with Imarn Khan’s response and questioned whether he could provide an explanation for his ignorance.
Justice Minallah said, “The offence is quite serious, which has not been realized. They only have to look at the legislation.”
Hamid responded that they had realized this and had therefore mentioned it in their written response.
In light of the Supreme Court rulings, the court inquired as to whether their response was appropriate.
CJ noted that no one may exert pressure on the court.
Hamid clarified that Khan stated in his reply that he respects the district and the Supreme Court in order to defend his client. He insisted that Shahbaz Gill’s alleged torture was the reason his client had made the statement.
Different speech from Nehal Hashmi
Imran Khan then asked his attorney to ask the judge to grant him permission to speak.
Hamid stated, “Imran Khan wishes to explain his remark from the day before yesterday,” adding that the reference made in court to his speech was based on inaccurate reporting.
It will be played in the courtroom later, according to the IHC CJ. He continued by saying that PML-N leader Nehal Hashmi was found guilty despite his not naming a judge in his case.
However, Hamid informed the bench, “Imran Khan’s speech is entirely different.
IHC CJ Minallah responded by stating that endangering a district judge is a considerably more serious offense than endangering a judge on the top court. “We wouldn’t have paid attention to that if you had made such statements about us.”
Imran Khan’s attorney claimed that he had never expressed the opinion that inferior courts should be given less respect and that he valued all courts equally.
Then Justice Sattar questioned Imran Khan about whether he would start making accusations like these against the bench if he did not like the court’s decision. “Does just your lawyer understand what you said and no one else? If you don’t like order, then will you keep replying in this manner?
Imran Khan may not be aware of the seriousness of the repercussions, according to Justice Sattar, because he provided a feeble reaction.
IHC CJ concurred with Justice Sattar in adding that political party leaders have a great deal of responsibility because they have such large followings.
Propaganda on social media
Hamid subsequently informed the court that SC had heartily accepted Imran Khan’s apologies. IHC should dismiss this case, he continued, because there is no difference between the case at hand and the one from 2014.
Khan’s attorney added that politicians occasionally use the wrong phrases.
At this point, Justice Tariq Jahangiri stated that Khan had been informed that the medical board had dismissed all of Gill’s allegations of torture. IHC was already hearing the matter.
Shoaib Shaheen, a different PTI attorney, claimed that the jail administrator and medical officer had both attested to the presence of marks on Gill’s body.
The defendant raises his voice for other individuals and ladies, too, according to Hamid, but his remarks are interpreted negatively.
IHC CJ then stated that the parties and their leaders were to blame for the country’s current state of political isolation. Has any political figure prevented their followers from believing propaganda?
CJ bemoaned the spread of unfounded misinformation about people and the judiciary on social media and added that it was the fault of political leaders that such a scenario had developed.
Imran Khan repeatedly disobeyed the court
Imran Khan was trialed in a contempt court in 2014, according to Pakistan’s attorney general Ashtar Ausaf Ali, who was speaking during the proceedings.
He was given the same accusations and the same course of action, but he eventually received a pardon. According to the attorney general, Imran Khan failed to file his affidavit in the case and his response is of no use.
Ausaf said that he mentioned the female judge in his party’s second public meeting, citing his speeches at public rallies.
Imran Khan had pledged in an affidavit to SC that he would refrain from speaking disparagingly of the judiciary in the future.
The AGP said, “One again, the guy stands before the court under the same allegations,” and enquired as to if he believed he would be pardoned repeatedly.
He continued by saying that the suspect in the case for contempt of court did not apologize for his offensive remarks.
Amicus curiae begs for Imran Khan Pardon
Laws pertaining to contempt of court, according to amicus curiae Makhdoom Ali Khan who is assisting the court, are not created to defend judges. He stated, “Justice Obstruction is addressed by this law.
Donald Trump’s Twitter account was suspended when CJ Minallah mentioned it, but Makhdoom Ali asserted that this had nothing to do with contempt of court. Probably because Trump may have offended Congress, the account was suspended.
US president had called the court’s judgment the “worst decision,” he continued. Over there, the courts exhibited hesitancy and took another course.
CJ responded by stating that Trump’s account was suspended in the US because his tweets were agitating the populace.
You had already stated that there shouldn’t be any restrictions on the right to free speech in your response, Makhdoom said, adding that the case against Imran Khan for contempt of court should be dropped.
“What will become of the notion that everyone is equal?” Justice Babar Sattar questioned upon hearing this. “Since you are stating that a political leader should be considered in the light of the present political circumstances.”
Makhdoom retorted that the actions were taken by the court to avoid impeding the administration of justice.
CJ Minallah questioned Makhdoom on Imran Khan’s responses
We dismissed the claims of contempt of court against them because “other leaders of the same party also spoke against this court, but we don’t care about these things,” the CJ remarked.
When the previous premier threatened a judge, according to Makhdoom, a five-member bench was established. “This in and of itself is a highly important topic with respect to the inferior courts.”
According to the chief justice, if something had been spoken about him, he would not have paid attention to it. However, the court’s primary interest at the moment is delivering justice.
Makhdoom argued that since the matters before this court were more directly related to politics, anytime a party announced a verdict against a party, the court came under fire.
Makhdoom Ali stated that the court must ensure that no leader is encircled.
After hearing this statement, Justice Sattar questioned whether the court would need to consider the prominence of the concerned leader and the effect the ruling might have on the nation’s political climate.
He questioned, “Are you claiming that the judges function like puppets in rendering such decisions?”
Makhdoom replied, “I can never use words like puppet [for a court].
CJ then informed Makhdoom that the behavior that should have been displayed had not been seen following the contempt of court proceedings.
CJ questioned Makhdoom, saying, “Don’t be afraid of social media. Just tell me what you recommend. The political leadership must educate their supporters because the leadership is accountable for what happens on social media.”
Social media should not be feared at all, according to CJ Minallah, because it has no legitimacy.
CJ questioned Makhdoom, “Do you want us to accept the justification offered [by Khan]? They [the PTI] have not yet realized the seriousness of the problem.”
Makhdoom Ali reported that Imran Khan apologized and begged to have the show-cause notice against him lifted. This case won’t proceed if the court rules against it.
IHC CJ responded, “We have nothing to say; the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on us.”
Plea seeking dismissal
Khan submitted a brand-new miscellaneous plea just hours before the hearing, requesting authorization to submit written arguments.
Imran Khan claimed in his new argument that the Constitution prohibits the high court from exercising suo moto jurisdiction. It is important to document the arguments for and against the contempt case’s admission.
The plea read, “The oral arguments during the course of the proceedings will also explain the written arguments.”
