Former prime minister Imran Khan, in his recent response to Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday expressed “deep regret over his unintentional remarks” in case filed for contempt against his for his controversial remarks about District Judge and Sessions Judge Zeb Chaudhry, who approved the physical conclusion of PTI leader Shahbaz Gill in case of rebellion.
in last hearing of happening on On August 31, the High Court summoned Imran and his lawyers. on September 8 (Thursday).
Imran presented his original reply in VVK on on August 30, in which he expressed his willingness to “take back his words about Judge Chaudhry if they were ‘regarded as inappropriate'” and pleaded with the IHC that the judges who agreed to sue against his should consider withdrawing from bench because, according to him, they had already decided this issue.
In his reply, submitted through the lawyers of Hamid Khan and barrister Salman Safdar, he asked the court to examine the content of his speech in context of his intention.
reply explained that Imran mistakenly believed that Judge Chaudhry was an executive judge exercising out executive or administrative functions on federal government orders.
IHC chief judge Athar Minallah said he expects for Imran confessed mistake. “I expected you to go to the courts and say that you trust them (the courts),” adding that Imran’s detailed response disappointed him.
IHC later gave Imran another one chance send a “weighted” response in contempt proceedings against his.
head of PTI in his recent reply stated that what he said was “unintentional” and was not intended to address a female judge. for of which, he says, he has “many of respect”.
“The respondent never wanted to hurt her feelings, and if her feelings were hurt, she deeply regrets. The defendant was not going to threaten the woman judge and could not think. of do it,” says reply.
The ex-premier said he stands firm for rights of women in Pakistan and strongly supported the idea of great induction and presentation of ladies judges, both in higher and lower courts.
Imran said he would not shy away from expressing his remorse to the female judge.
“These remarks were never meant to interfere with or in Any way influence the course of administration of justice”.
The head of PTI acknowledged that the courts are all over Pakistan has joined rule of law and constitution.
Imran also explained in his reply that he was unaware that Gill’s case was still pending in court, especially after the judge ruled that he was physically imprisoned. “The defendant believed that after physical detention of Gill was approved, and that was it. reply presented to them reads.
head of PTI made explanation as a court also reprimanded Imran in in last hearing for commenting on in [Shahbaz Gill] case under jurisdiction.
The respondent was informed about the technical rule of question of obedience and effect on freedom of speech properly down in Case of Firdous Ashik Avan, reply said as he assured that he would be “very careful in such matters”. in future”.
He noticed that he did not know of effects of such a statement.
Imran also referred to comments of PML-N leaders Talal Chaudhry and Danial Aziz against Courts- who were accused with disrespect on the part of the sun in 2018, saying they never expressed remorse or offered an explanation. for their statements.
“Their statements were calculated campaign to undermine the Supreme Court and anger the Justices of the Supreme Court in in aftermath of Panama case,” wrote Imran. in his reply, stating that the two leaders were praised for their leadership for them “heroic victims and now they face of in party”.
In his reply, Imran insisted that his “reference to the female judge and other officers during his speech was spontaneous and in spur of moment and was not designed for personally attack any judicial officer or judicial authority in in any way.”
He called on the IHC to cancel show-cause the notice given to him and to dispose of contempt matters.
Imran calls reference to Toshahana ‘misuse’ of power’
Separately, the head of PTI submitted a 60-page written response to the election commission. of Pakistan (ECP) in link Toshakhana today.
Link has been submitted against in former premiere coalition government, for do not share details of Toshakhan gifts and proceeds from their proposed sale.
Established in 1974, Toshakhana – administrative department. of department of the Cabinet of Ministers and stores precious gifts given to rulers, parliamentarians, bureaucrats and officials by the heads of other governments and states and foreign dignitaries.
According to Toshahana rules, gifts/gifts and other materials received by persons to whom these rules the application must be reported to a department of the Cabinet of Ministers.
On August 4, lawmakers from the Pakistan Democracy Movement, which is part of of ruling alliance – submitted a link for removal of the head of the PTI from public office under articles 62 and 63 of Constitution over his indecision share details of Toshakhan gifts.
During today’s hearing, heard by five members bench led by Chief Electoral Commissioner (CEC) Sikandar Sultan Raja, PTI counsel Ali Zafar introduced Imran reply.
In it, the head of PTI said that the case against It was founded on unscrupulous intentions and political motives”, claiming that it was “an abuse of of powerand the Constitution.
He said that his government received 329 gifts during his three-and-half-year tenure out of of which 58 were received former prime minister and his wife. These gifts included watches, pens, jewelry, small carpets, napkins, perfumes, tasbih (rosary beads), vases, paperweights, pen holders, cufflinks, rings, bracelets, pendants and crafts. of art.
” amount of in gifts have been deposited in in bank and are mentioned in allegations,” Imran said, arguing that the allegations of hiding assets were unfounded and wrong.
Moreover, he claimed that no member of The National Assembly announced its assets as of for now.
head of PTI also said that the ECP cannot disqualify a person under section 62(1)(f) of Constitution. Law establishing a precondition for member of parliament to be “garden and amin” (honest and righteous) is the same position according to which former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was disqualified by the Supreme Court in the composition of five judges. bench on July 28, 2017 in the Panama Papers case. Likewise, Pakistani Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Jahangir Tarin was disqualified. on December 15 last year separate bench of Supreme Court in accordance with the same provision.
“The Supreme Court held that “The Board of Elections may not declare a member disqualified under section 62(1)(f)”. It’s only judgment of law” may decide on section 62(1)(f),” he said. in his reply Today.
Subsequently former prime minister also asked the commission to drop the case.