ISLAMABAD    -    The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Thursday decided to indict Chair­man Pakistan Tehr­ik-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan in contempt of court proceeding ini­tiated against him for threatening an addition­al sessions judge of Is­lamabad.

A five-member larger bench of the IHC head­ed by Chief Justice of IHC Justice Athar Mi­nallah and comprising Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Miangul Hasan Aurangzeb, Jus­tice Babar Sattar and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jehangri conducted hearing of the contempt case againstThe IHC stated in its written order that they have heard the counsel for the re­spondent, the Attorney General as well as the amici curiae. Khan’s coun­sel for the respondent took the bench through the supplementary response filed by the respondent and submit­ted that it was an explanation of the speech in relation to which contempt proceedings have been initiated.

The bench noted, “We have consid­ered the response so filed and have not found it satisfactory. We are not convinced that the respondent has purged himself of the wrongdoing al­leged against him in relation to which the show cause notice was issued, in view of the law laid down in the cases titled “Syed Masroor Ahsan and oth­ers v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others” [PLD 1998 SC 823], “Shahid Orakzai v. Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz Group) and 8 others”, “Contempt pro­ceedings against Senator Nehal Hash­mi” “Suo Motu Contempt Proceed­ings” [PLD 2018 SC 773], “Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings” [PLD 2018 SC 738] and “The State v. Dr Firdous Ash­iq Awan [2020 PLD 109 Islamabad].”

Later, the court adjourned the hear­ing till September 22 for framing of charge against the respondent.

During the hearing, the IHC Chief Justice observed that the PTI Chair­man Imran’s replies to the court’s show-cause notice appeared to be justifying contempt of the judiciary and showed no remorse or regret.

Hamid Khan, representing Imran, said that there was a difference be­tween giving a justification and a clari­fication and here, he is giving a clarifica­tion. Justice Athar asked that would you have submitted the same reply if these words were used for a Supreme Court or a high court judge? He mentioned that Imran was giving the justifica­tion that Gill was tortured while in po­lice custody. He asked that will the de­cisions be taken in rallies or the courts.

He also asked that can a former prime minister take a stance of ig­norance of the law. He made it clear that the judges of district courts were more important than those of the high court or Supreme Court.

Justice Sattar asked that if this court takes legal action against Imran un­der the Contempt of Court Act, then he would publicly comment on it. Ha­mid answered that every citizen had the right to initiate legal proceedings. 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. He added that there is a difference between a justification and a clarification. Justice Athar asked that why the judges of the lower courts were considered differ­ent to those of higher courts. He add­ed that you are justifying contempt of court which means that you have no remorse or regret. Justice Sattar asked that if the PTI would threaten “action” against the five judges who are hearing the case if he was not happy with their decision. Imran’s counsel said that his client had used the word ‘regret’ in his response on the court’s orders and once again requested the court to dis­miss the case. He maintained that they can assure the court that Imran Khan will be more careful in the future.

Justice Athar remarked that there were three types of contempt of court charges: judicial, civil and criminal. He added that those cases do not fall under criminal contempt as they talked about the role of the court while Imran had commented on a matter that was sub-judice and they have not initiated contempt pro­ceedings in an attempt to scandalize the court. The judge also pointed out the criminal contempt was an offence that was “serious in nature”.

Earlier, Khan submitted in his writ­ten response that with utmost re­spect he cannot even imagine under­taking or advising the undertaking of a contumacious and intentional ma­licious campaign against judiciary or to interfere or obstruct the course of justice in any manner whatsoever. Imran and decided to frame charges against him in this matter.