Pakistan Today

SC verdict – PCO judge files intra-court appeal

ISLAMABAD – Justice Shabbar Raza Rizvi, a dysfunctional judge of the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday filed an intra-court appeal in the Supreme Court seeking setting aside of its earlier short order of initiating contempt proceedings against him from Feb 21.
A four-member Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui on February 2, 2011 had announced its verdict on legal point as to whether it could initiate contempt proceedings against the judges who had taken oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) in defiance of seven-member bench’s restraint order of Nov 3,2007, and whether it could issue contempt notices to generals involved in promulgation of Nov 3, 2007 emergency in the country in defiance of restraint order.
The court had ruled to frame charges on Feb 21, 2011 against nine judges of the superior courts who had taken oath under the PCO by violating the restraining order. The bench had also ruled that these 9 judges could appear on that date to either in-person or through their counsels to enter their pleas on the charges framed against them.
Those 9 judges against whom the court will frame contempt charge are: Justice (r) Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, Justice (r) Abdul Hameed Dogar and dysfunctional judges including- Justice Hamid Ali Shah, Justice Hasnat Ahmed Khan, Justice Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, Justice Yasmin Abbasey, Justice Jehan Zaib Rahim, Justice Sayed Zahid Hussain and Justice Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah.
On Monday, Dr Abdul Basit, counsel for dysfunctional judge Justice Shabbar Raza Rizvi filed the intra-court appeal in the apex court under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 against the court’s short order of Feb 2.
It was prayed in the intra court appeal that the notice issued to the appellant on October 5, 2009 be withdrawn forthwith.
The counsel contended that no contempt proceedings could be initiated against his client unless sufficient material was not available in on the record to establish that the restraint order had actually been served on him.

Exit mobile version