Pakistan Today

SC ‘disappointed’ in Khan

 

 

The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday refused to entertain the riposte by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan in the contempt of court case, with Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry saying Khan’s remarks were tantamount to abusing the judiciary and could not be allowed.

He directed the respondent to submit a detailed statement with the court by August 28.

A three-member SC bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and comprising Justice Jawwad S Khwaja and Justice Shaikh Azmat Saeed, started hearing the case regarding the PTI chief’s remarks during a press conference on July 26, in which Khan had termed the role of the (lower) judiciary in the alleged rigging in the May 11 general elections “shameful”.

In a packed-to-capacity courtroom, the PTI chief came flanked by his lawyer Hamid Khan and other top party leaders. Top lawyers, journalists and political activists were also present.

Imran has not only been a staunch supporter of the judiciary but was also the petitioner who got former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani disqualified last year.

Though the chief justice and his fellow judges were in a light mode initially, the court environment got serious as soon as the written statement was submitted with the court by Hamid.

The chief justice remarked that this was a matter of prestige of the institution and not about individuals.

The court asked Imran Khan to present proof against returning officer‚ if any. The court said the term “shameful” used by PTI chief was apparently abusive and the remarks were not acceptable to the court at all.

Hamid said Imran did not aim at scandalising the judiciary and respected the judiciary.

Terming his verbal statement inadequate in the contempt of court case, the court gave Hamid around one hour to submit the PTI chief’s revised reply.

In his revised response, Imran submitted that his July 26 press conference was not against the judiciary but he had criticised the role of the returning officers (ROs) and district returning officers (DROs) during the May 11 general elections. The bench rejected the revised statement, with Justice Saeed terming it “disappointing”. He said the court expected a better response from Imran.

Hamid said the PTI was disappointed with the role played by the ROs and DROs in the elections that were rigged. The CJP remarked that those who were defeated in polls were always disappointed. He argued it was also alleged that the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) were hands in glove. He said there were no personal egos involved but they wanted respect of the institution.

He said Imran had filed 31 petitions for irregularities in polls held in Punjab and all were forwarded to tribunals. He said the PTI should have waited for the hearings.

“We respect Imran Khan and he is a national leader and he has been supportive of the court,” he said, adding that Khan should have read Article 175.

The CJP said there were around 20,000 cases pending with the court. “If he (Khan) was in a hurry, we would have heard his petition early.” He said he did not want the PTI chief to aplologise but it was astonishing that a person who was fighting for courts pride was now ridiculing them. “It is unacceptable,” he added.

He said the court might give more time for a detailed response.

Hamid said he would require three weeks to submit a detailed statement.

Justice Khwaja said the court could not respond to allegations levelled against it.

“Can such words be used for the judiciary?” the CJP asked, adding since Imran was a national leader and a public figure, such words and statements were not expected and therefore, could not be ignored.

This prompted Imran to himself move to the rostrum and say he and his party strongly supported the judiciary and he had worked hard during the movement for restoration of the judiciary.

“The restoration of the judiciary had been on top of my agenda. I had also spent eight days in jail for that,” Imran said.

The CJP, however, stopped Khan from speaking, and told him that there were others who had even resigned from their jobs for the restoration of the judges.

The court deemed the replies inadequate and said the words allegedly used for the judiciary could be punishable by law according to the court’s decision at the end of the hearing.

The court gave Imran until August 28 to submit a written, detailed response and adjourned the proceedings.

 

Exit mobile version