ISLAMABAD-The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Friday hinted to initiate contempt of court proceedings against Chief Commissioner in Fawad Chaudhary’s petition for meeting his family members and lawyers.
A single bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb conducted hearing of a petition filed by Fawad Chaudhary through his counsel Faisal Fareed advocate. 
Earlier, the IHC bench directed the Chief Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) through its order dated 20.11.2023 to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending application in accordance with the law and preferably before the next date of hearing. The Court had also required for the copy of the decision to be submitted before the Court on the next date of hearing. 
 During the hearing on Friday, the state Counsel tendered appearance and submitted that the directions have not been complied with. 
Justice Miangul Hassan noted, “This, prima facie, amounts to flouting the directions passed by a Constitutional Court, for which Chief Commissioner, ICT is liable to be proceeded for contempt of Court.
The judge stated in the written order that on the next date of hearing, the Chief Commissioner, ICT is directed to tender appearance and explain as to why the proceedings for contempt of Court should not be initiated against him. Later, he deferred the hearing of the case till November 27 for further proceedings. 
In this matter, the petitioner (Fawad) sought indulgence of this court with respect to his meeting with his family members and lawyers. His counsel stated that petitioner who is former Federal Minister and a member of Supreme Court Bar deserves better facilities as per the Prison Manual/ Rules and the same are not being provided to him.  
The counsel further stated that during judicial remand, petitioner had filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate being the competent Court which was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate while observing as under:- “Allowed. Superintendent Central Jail Rawp is directed to do needful as per law and rules.” 
The counsel further asserted that despite the order/ direction passed by the Judicial Magistrate, respondent No.2 (Superintendent Adiala Jail Rawalpindi) is not paying any heed to the direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, therefore, petitioner is left with no option but to invoke the constitution jurisdiction of this Court.