The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued contempt of court notices to the interior secretary, Capital Development Authority chairman and Islamabad chief commissioner for non-implementation on its 2007 judgment in the Lal Masjid case.
A three-member bench of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Tariq Parvez was hearing a suo motu case of Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa along with a contempt petition filed by Maulana Abdul Aziz.
An unpleasant scene was also witnessed when harsh words were exchanged between Tariq Asad, counsel for Maulana Abdul Aziz, and members of the bench that was hearing the case.
At the onset of hearing, Tariq Asad urged the court to take up contempt of court plea regarding the matter, but the court asked him to sit-down as his application would be heard later on.
Asad, however, insisted the bench hear his contempt of court application first. Upon this, a court’s assistant intervened into the matter and asked Tariq to leave the court rostrum, but Tariq refused to do and grilled on the court’s assistant during the proceedings.
Upon this, the CJ and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain expressed severe anger with him and said he was getting too much liberty from the court. The chief justice also warned that they would stop him from appearing before the bench due to his irresponsible behavior. “You can’t do it,” Tariq replied. The CJ again warned: “We have already done so with others”. “Then do it,” Tariq challenged and left the rostrum.
Iftikhar Gilani, counsel for Wafaq-ul-Madaris told the bench that the federal government had not complied with the court’s order in the Lal Masjid case. A deputy attorney general told the court that administration of Jamia Hafsa had entered into a contract with the federal government in December 2011. In view of this, the government had given a plot of 20 kanals for Jamia Hafsa in H-11, he said. Iftikhar Gilani said though the government had allotted the plot, it was not constructing the madrasa in view of the court’s 2007 judgment.
He also stated that CDA was also not allowing Lal Masjid’s administration to construct the madrasa on its own. The court suggested the CDA to either comply with the court’s order or go through the agreement.
It also expressed concern that the court had passed the order five years ago but the relevant authorities were not complying with it.