The Supreme Court raised questions on Thursday on the maintainability of a plea seeking contempt proceedings against PTI chief Imran Khan — for allegedly breaking the top court’s orders regarding his party’s ‘Azadi March’ on May 25 — saying that the court will take action if it considers it necessary as it has “reports of law enforcement agencies”.
On October 13, the interior ministry instituted contempt of court charges against Imran for allegedly flouting the SC’s May 25 order.
A five-member Supreme Court (SC) bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial conducted on Friday the hearing of the contempt case against the former prime minister. Khan’s lawyer Salman Akram Raja, and the interior ministry’s counsel Salman Aslam Butt were present in the court.
Salman Aslam Butt, the government’s attorney, argued that the PTI had issued the order for its supporters to arrive at D-Chowk on May 24 at the beginning of today’s session.
He added that the “entire record” proving Imran was informed of the court order establishing the march’s restrictions was available and that a USB drive holding comments from PTI leaders had also been delivered to the court.
Butt disagreed with the PTI’s assertion that Imran’s container had jammers installed during the march, which prevented him from receiving the court order in a timely manner. He claimed that installing such devices required permission from the relevant authorities.
“Imran has made false statements in his reply; he first mentioned his and then the chief minister’s jammers,” the lawyer contended.
At that, Justice Naqvi remarked, “How does that court determine who is making a false statement? The Supreme Court is not a trial court that it will record testimonies.”
The judge further remarked that the interior ministry’s plea “is already ineffective” and told Butt to first present arguments on the maintainability of the plea.
“A matter of contempt is between the court and the contemnor.” Justice Naqvi remarked.
At that, Butt contended that a petitioner could also seek contempt proceedings.
However, the CJP endorsed Justice Naqvi’s observation, saying: “That the matter of contempt is between the court and the suspect is correct.”
Justice Afridi questioned the necessity of the interior ministry’s request for contempt proceedings against Imran when the court has requested a report from security services to look into the contempt case in a ruling on May 26
Moreover, the CJP stated that the court had to determine whether Imran might receive a show-cause notice based on the evidence at hand.
He pointed out that the government lawyer had not yet specified which marching leaders who were “in contact [with relevant authorities regarding the case]” were with Imran.
Imran had ended the long march when the SC formed a larger bench to hear the case, he recalled. “The court must take timing into account.”
Moreover, he said: “Those who reached D-Chowk [on May 25], were they march participants or locals?”
“You (Butt) have to explain all these details to us. You have to prove that Imran was aware of the court order. You have to prove that the contempt was committed despite having knowledge of the court order.”
Justice Ahsan stated that “the question is what is the federation’s pretension in the contempt case.”
He added that the PTI had sought permission to stage a protest at the ground between H-9 and G-9. “The intention was that if permission was given for H-9, they would go to D-Chowk,” he said.
