Contempt of court case against Imran Khan: How the government is aggrieved party in contempt of court proceedings: SC

0
124

Supreme Court (SC) has remarked how the government is aggrieved party in connection with contempt of court proceedings.

“we have to see those who reached D Chowk were locals or part of long march. The contempt of court proceedings is not meant for convicting any one. How the government is affected party in connection with contempt of court proceedings, court further observed.

The contempt of court case filed by interior ministry against Imran Khan came up for hearing before a five members bench of SC presided over by the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial here Friday.

The CJP remarked “Imran Khan says court orders was not in his knowledge. Government can assist only. The court has to decide. The court has to see what had happened under what circumstances. The situation was tense on May 25. The protesters were not under some one control. When larger bench started hearing the long march had ended. Who said what. What call was given we have to review all the situation.

He further remarked we have to see those who had reached for long march were locals or part of long march. The contempt of court proceedings is not mean for awarding punishment to any one. Too much was said about the court but the court did not take notice. The court should be appraised on the basis of its decision and not on one’s thinking that intention was what.

Justice Mazahir Ali Naqvi remarked who is saying wrong and who is not. How SC can SC determine. SC is not trial court which should record evidence. Government petition is already infructuous. The state lawyer should give argument on the maintainability of the petition. The matter of contempt is in between the court and contemnor. SC had remarked the court would initiate proceedings if it willed so. Show us any one court decision where contempt of court proceedings has been initiated in ineffective case. Long march was a protest against the government and not a parade done with discipline. Is D-Chow prohibited venue for staging protest. The court will not be affected what happened in the past. There is no restriction on giving statement before the court. You have to prove him wrong. If government wants to launch criminal proceedings then it should understand its requirements.

Suleman Butt counsel for interior ministry took the plea before the court that Imran was giving call from May 24 to go to D-Chowk. Imran Khan was aware of court’s order. This thing is proved from the record. The jammers can be installed with the permission of the government. Imran Khan has given wrong statement in his reply. First he talked of his jammer and later he talked of his chief minister jammer. The contempt of court proceedings is continuity of court’s decision. Imran Khan wanted to come to D-chowk always. Imran Khan gave contradictory statement in the court. First he said he has to go to D-Chowk. Later he said his policy was to go to H-9 ground. Will court ignore how many statements of Imran Khan. There is no permission to voice protest in red zone. Permission was given to stage dharna in Abpara in 2014. But PTI came to red zone. The SC became besieged due to arrival of PTI in red zone. The judges had to come through some other way.

Suleman Akram Raja counsel for Imran Khan took the plea government had presented social media’s videos. They have filed their stance on videos.

Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan remarked SC had wrapped May 25 case. How can the current petition be continuity of May 25 order. SC had ended the case being infructuous. How the government is aggrieved party that it should get initiate contempt of court proceedings. The court had ordered to remove barricades on the statement for not going to D-Chowk.

Justice Yahya Afridi remarked the information have reached SC. What is need of government petition. It is upto SC how the petition is maintainable.

Earlier the tweets and videos of statements of Imran Khan and PTI leaders were presented in the written reply filed by the interior ministry.

It was said in the written reply Asad Umar reached Imran Khan by a helicopter during long march. Asad Umar had assured the court at 1 pm. Asad Umar was standing with Imran Khan when announcement was made for D-Chowk after assurance. Imran Khan wanted to come to D-chowk even after court’s order. Imran Khan did not refute any tweet. Jammer cannot be used without license.

Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan remarked with regard to interior ministry reply there is much difference between jammers and legal jammers. Jammers are installed in several areas without any license. Imran Khan had given no assurance direct to SC. It will have to be proved assurance was given under the directives of Imran Khan. If any wrong statement has been given it will be from the side of Babar Awan and Faisal Chuaudhry.

The counsel for interior ministry said what will be done about the wrong statement given in SC.

Justice Mazahir Naqvi remarked a separate law is applied to the matter of wrong statement.

The hearing of the case was adjourned till next week.