Imran ‘justifying contempt of court’ in replies to IHC: Justice Minallah

Justice Sattar asked Imran’s counsel if legal action under the Contempt of Court Act could be publicly commented on.

Hamid replied that every citizen had the right to initiate legal proceedings, adding that the word action didn’t necessarily mean to threaten. “We assure the court that no one was threatened,” he maintained.

Justice Sattar also observed that the words used by Imran were “threatening”.

However, Imran’s lawyer argued that his client had stated multiple times that he was never against the judiciary. “He ran a campaign for the freedom of the judiciary,” Hamid pointed out.

He clarified that the PTI chairman’s aim was not to use harsh words against the female judge. However, Justice Sattar said that Imran was still trying to justify what he had said.

“There is a difference between a justification and a clarification. This is what I am trying to tell you,” Hamid contended.

To this, Justice Sattar asked: “Does Imran Khan want a fair trial? Is this why he has submitted this response?”

Imran’s lawyer replied that his client wanted the contempt case to be wrapped up.

Meanwhile, Justice Minallah observed that the former prime minister was taking a very “risky” stance. “The apex court had also warned Imran of contempt,” he recalled. “You are now once again saying that you won’t do this in the future.”

Justice Minallah reiterated that even now Imran wanted to justify his remarks, adding that the case of PML-N’s Nehal Hashmi was similar to the one at hand. “Nehal had not taken the name of any judge.”

Justice Minallah went on to ask why the judges of the lower courts were considered different to those of higher courts. “You are justifying contempt of court which means that you have no remorse or regret,” the judge observed.

Justice Sattar also noted that Imran had not shown any remorse through his behaviour. “Even after the speech and the contempt of court case, justifications are being given,” he said.

Justice Sattar asked that if the PTI would threaten “action” against the five judges hearing the case if he was not happy with their decision.

“Are you trying to say that what Imran said was right and that the world has perceived it to be wrong?” the judge asked.

Taking the rostrum at the outset of the hearing, Imran’s lawyer pointed out that a revised reply was submitted to the court on Wednesday. He said that the new reply was submitted after taking the court’s directives at the last hearing into consideration.

Hamid said that two apex court judgements had also been attached with the reply. “We want this case to be wrapped up now,” he said.

Hamid also referred to the case of firebrand PML-N leader Daniyal Aziz, who was convicted by the SC in 2018 for contempt.

“At the previous hearing, the IHC had instructed us to review contempt cases in the SC,” he said, adding that the court had also referred to the cases of Aziz and Talal Chaudhry.

However, Imran’s case is different from the other two cases, Hamid said.

Here, Justice Minallah remarked that there were three types of contempt of court charges: judicial, civil and criminal.

“Those case do not fall under criminal contempt as they talked about the role of the court,” he said, adding that Imran had commented on a matter that was sub-judice.

“We have not initiated contempt proceedings in an attempt to scandalise the court,” the IHC CJ said. The also pointed out the criminal contempt was an offence that was “serious in nature”.

Justice Minal­lah said that ignorance was irrelevant in case of criminal contempt. “We had explained to you this this was [a case of] criminal contempt,” he remarked, adding that the PTI chief had been directed to think before submitting a reply.

“We are defenders of freedom of expression but incitement cannot be allowed,” Justice Minallah said.

He said criminal contempt of court was “a very sensitive matter”, adding that the district court was a “red line” for the court. He observed that the law had outlined a procedure for when a person was aggrieved by the judgement of the court.

Our society is so polarised that followers insult opponents in public places, Justice Minallah said. “If they do the same thing with a judge, then what will happen?” he asked.

He maintained that the independence of the judiciary was the court’s top priority. The court also asked Imran whether he tried to justify his actions in his reply submitted to the IHC.

“We have tried to provide an explanation and not a justification,” Imran’s counsel Hamid replied.

Reminding Imran of the court directives at the previous hearing, the IHC chief justice said: “The offence is serious in nature. We had explained it last time, but you did not understand.”

The IHC chief justice questioned whether a former prime minister could claim being unaware of the law as a defence.

Imran arrived at the IHC prior to the hearing. He was swarmed by reporters as he made his way to the IHC amid tight security alongside Shibli Faraz and Faisal Javed.

Speaking to media outside the courtroom, Imran quipped that the security arrangements in place made him feel like Kulbhushan Jadhav — an Indian spy sentenced to death by Pakistan for his involvement in subversive activities in the country.

In response to a question about whether he will tender an unconditional apology, the PTI chief sarcastically said he would obtain a NOC from Matiullah Jan, a senior journalist, as he had more experience.