ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Islamabad Athar Minalla interrogated PTI Chairman Imran Khan on Wednesday during a hearing of case of contempt against his over his derogatory remarks made during the rally in federal capital.
PTI Chairman Appeared Before Five Members bench of IHC under tight security.
The Islamabad police set up tents from the entrance gate to the courtroom and special passes were released for lawyers and journalists for today’s hearing.
Imran Khan was summoned by the IHC to appear before him today after show-cause he was given notice.
August 23 big bench of IHC released show-cause notification to Khan after taking up contempt of trial against his for threatening additional meetings of the judge during public rally.
five persons bench The case is being heard by Chief Justice Athar Minallah, Judge Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Judge Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, Judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri and Judge Babar Sattar.
“Grieved written by Imran Khan reply’
At the beginning of today’s hearing, IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah, expressing his displeasure over written reply presented by PTI Chairman Imran Khan show-cause notification, said he did not expect this reply.
Addressing Hamid Khan, counsel of Imran Khan, Minalla stated, “The court expected you to raise the respect of the judiciary before coming here.”
political party believes in rule of law and constitution, he said, adding: “I am personally saddened by the writing reply”.
Judge Minallah said he hoped the PTI chairman would raise the profile of the court. confidence, however, this should note that just like “The time that has passed cannot come back, the words spoken through one’s tongue cannot be taken back”.
The court stated that Khan is a popular leader and has many followers, so he should think before he speaks.
“I expected him [Khan] may come to terms with in fact that he did something wrong. A political leader has multiple followers should think before you speak.”
“From your response, I feel that Imran Khan did not understand that he did something wrong,” the IHC judge told the PTI chairman’s attorney.
in last three years – during PTI’s tenure – IHC raised issue of torture without any fear, noting that the state encourages torture in in last 70 years old.
“Torture of any level should not be tolerated. of torture than to make someone disappear?” the court asked as PTI continues to assert that party leader Shahbaz Gill was tortured by the police.
Taking forward PTI claims, Khan left earlier this month on criticize additional district and session judges for waiver of bail plea of Jill.
Judge Minalla asked. who had control of Adial Prison, where Gill was imprisoned. for several days. “If there is at least small a complaint of torture, then maybe jail authorities put a person in jail without a medical examination?”
IHC CJ went on say that pti should look at things of journalists Asad Tur and Absar Alam. He added what during last three years later, the IHC referred such questions to the PTI federal cabinet.
“I wish they raised their voice in then in that regard.”
During the trial, Islamabad’s Advocate General Jahangir Jadoun tried to speak but was stopped. “It’s a matter between a man who allegedly committed contempt of court and court.
The IHC judge then asked when the Supreme Court had completed up happening of alleged torture of Gill and when it was made. At the same time, Khan counsel said the court closed the case on August 22 and PTI Chairman gave a speech on August 20th.
“It was already pending in IHC while he made speech. You should read the judgment of Firdous Ashik Awan. According to PECA regulation, a person speaking against institutions won’t even get bail for six months.”
This court, said CJ IHC, annulled the PECA ruling and then the defamation campaign was started against It. “However, the courts never care about criticism.”
Moving on, Judge Minallah said Khan kept asking why the courts were open at 12 midnight – during the National Assembly meeting. vote of no-confidence against ex-premier in April.
“This judgment will remain open for weak 24/7. However, the courts do not need make excuses to anyone why they open and when.
Delete message against October 12, 1999
“A business of contempt of court is very serious,” he said, noting that the opening of the courts at 12 o’clock was very clear message that they are not want repetition of October 12, 1999 – the day when former Dictator General Pervez Musharraf declared martial law.
CJ IHC then stated that political leaders are abusing social media as photos of he and the judge of the Supreme Court were made viral, and they were called leaders of political party.
“Wrong information shared information about the registered apartment against My name in foreign country,” he said, adding that his institution also made several mistakes.
The IHC court said that political parties do not ban followers from downloading such messages. “If a leader tells his employees to stop, it indeed stop.”
In reply to Khan counsel asked if he could speak.
The lawyer said he was aware that the court was disappointed by the response, but noted that the petition was raised general law points.
“However, I don’t want pick them up now.”
The matter is very serious
The IHC Judge then said that it was an open trial and everything that was happening over here it is transparent and whatever it is allow contempt of litigation may be misused.
Then the court said it was also includes the issue of freedom of speech.
The lawyer then stated that he also raised a question of dropping the case because Khan had no intention of saying something like what against referee.
The court then noted that the case of Gill’s torture was already heard at the IHC. “Check the record, then send your answer again, otherwise this court will accept the case forward.”
“This is a very serious matter, contempt of The trial could have ended today, but not because of the response.”
Imran Khan’s answer
former prime minister submitted its response to the notification, suggesting that the comments be removed against Extra sessions referee Zeba Chaudhry ‘if they were inappropriate’ but did not apologize for threatening her.
reply read: “There is another critical aspect of cause. According to the order taken on mentioned note of The Honorable Secretary, The Honorable Acting Chief Justice remarked that “this matter has been discussed in tea room and all my colleagues unanimously agreed with process forward’.
“Presented again with with respect and without prejudice to representations on dignity of supposed contempt that once again there is a serious procedural omission in instant matter that will have great pertinent to the case.
“Presented with great respect that all these venerable judges who agreed to initiate of the immediate trial that has previously ruled on the case may have to consider recusing the case, in interest of justice due process and rule of law.”
The case was filed against his on the foundation of newspaper clippings critical of him, he said. “Like someone who believes in rule of law and a strong independent justice systemrespondent does not believe in hurt feelings of respected judges.
“The defendant presents with humility in that if the words he uttered are considered inappropriate, he is ready to accept them back“, he said, urging the court to evaluate the speech in its context.
Khan added that his remarks against additions to the meeting by the judge did not prevent of justice and were also not intended to undermine the integrity and credibility of judicial system.
“If a, in a public rally and if in flow of speech, the Defendant uttered words that could anger this Honorable Court, the Defendant wishes to state categorically that this was not his intention.”
reply claimed that former prime minister made a mistake by the judge of additional sessions for magistrate who performs administrative functions in direction of federal government who was obsessed on torture Shahbaz Gill and violate his fundamental rights.
“It was in this is a misconception that she was referred to a magistrate,” it says, adding that the head of PTI was not going to of saying something against bailiff.
“It is alleged that the defendant had no motive (malicious intent) behind said speech or remarks, as well as those not addressed directly to a judicial officer.”
Head of PTI asked IHC to withdraw show-cause notice and manage of contempt of trial.