The Supreme Court, which had fixed March 20 as the date to frame contempt charges against former law minister Babar Awan for his media jibe at the judiciary, on Tuesday set April 2 as the date to frame the charges due to the unavailability of Awan’s counsel.
A two-member bench of Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and Justice Muhammad Ather Saeed was apprised by Babar Awan that his counsel Ali Zafar could not turn up, as he was attending a meeting of a lawyers’ delegation in Lahore, from where he had to leave for India with the delegation for over a week.
He requested the court to grant him more time in view of absence of his counsel.
The court accepted his request and put off further hearing by April 2. Now the contempt charges will be framed on April 2.
During the hearing, Awan, who looked somewhat furious, told the court that he would be busy in his political activity after April 5, thus he may be granted sufficient time to contest the case.
He said his law practice license had already been suspended by the court, thus now he had to do politics. The judges then asked him to contest his case along with indulging in politics.
Awan and some federal ministers launched a tirade against the Supreme Court at a press conference held on December 1, 2011, soon after the court ordered an inquiry into the memo issue by Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) former director general Tariq Khosa and attacked the family of a sitting judge of the apex court for being brother of Tariq Khosa.
On March 1, a bench comprising Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and Justice Muhammad Ather Saeed reserved its judgment whether to discharge contempt notice or to frame charges against Babar Awan.
On the last hearing, Ali Zafar, counsel for Babar Awan, had argued that the dignity of an institution did not rest on punishment. He had argued that the courts should always take a lenient view if a person appeared and tendered an apology.
The former law minister had submitted a written statement expressing regrets over the contents of the press conference and assuring the court that there was no intention or malice to ridicule the judiciary.
This is hilarious. I don't understnd it. Is the court working around the criminal's (or accused) schedule or is it supposed to be the other way around? I would not be surprised if, tomorrow, a accused robber tells the court that he can't come to the hearing because he has a robbery planned for that day. Will the court re schedule his hearing then? These judges are a joke.
Comments are closed.