IHC decides to indict Imran in contempt case on Sept 22

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday decided to indict former prime minister and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan in a contempt case on September 22, terming his supplementary reply in the case “dissatisfactory”.
The IHC larger bench led by Chief Justice Athar Minallah and comprising Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri and Justice Babar Sattar announced the decision.
The court was hearing the contempt of court case against Imran following his remarks against Additional Sessions Judge Zeba Chaudhry.
Both the amicus suggested the IHC discharge show cause notice against the former prime minister.
Even Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) representative Akhtar Hussain urged the high court to give one more opportunity to Imran for tendering an unconditional apology. However, the IHC unanimously decided to indict him.
The IHC also expressed dissatisfaction over Imran’s supplementary reply in the contempt case, terming the party chief’s statement ‘incitement’.
The former premier was present in court with his lawyer Hamid Khan.
“As per the court’s observation we have submitted the reply”, Hamid said, referring to Imran’s statement regarding the case.
After the IHC’s show cause notice, the former premier submitted a second written reply yesterday, expressing his deep regret for the “unintentional” words he spoke about the judge.
“There will be no shame in expressing regret to the judge for my words,” the PTI leader had said.
Hamid maintained that his client wanted the matter to be closed, which was mentioned in the written reply to the court.
He further said that during the hearing on August 31, the court handed over the cases of Daniyal Aziz and Talal Chaudhry. He added that he would explicate how Imran’s case was different from those Supreme Court decisions.
“I will also place the decision of the Supreme Court in the Imran Khan case before the court”, he said.
IHC CJ Minallah said that the aim was to highlight three judgments of the Supreme Court, that in the Firdous Ashiq Awan case, three types of contempt of court are mentioned and that the Talal Chaudhry case was not criminal contempt of court.
The chief justice reiterated that criminal contempt of court was serious and intent could not be mentioned in it. He further stated that the counsel was told during the last hearing that this reference was of criminal contempt of court.
CJ Minallah maintained that there were no criminal contempt proceedings against Daniyal Aziz or Talal Chaudhry and that the high court was bound by the apex court’s decisions.