IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, HCJ.
Mr. Justice Jawwad S.
Khawaja
Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat
Saeed
Criminal Original Petition No.92 of 2013
(Contempt
proceeding against Imran Khan, Chairman PTI)
On Court’s
Notice: Mr. Muneer A. Malik,
Attorney
General for Pakistan
For alleged
contemnor: Mr. Hamid Khan,
Sr. ASC
Mr. M.S.
Khattak, AOR with
Imran
Khan
Date of hearing: 02.08.2013
O
R D E R
Iftikhar
Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.— Mr.
Hamid Khan, Sr. ASC has placed on record two documents in the form of explanations,
and he reserved his right to file detailed reply of the notice if need be. Contents
of the said explanations are reproduced hereinbelow for reference:-
“EXPLANATION No. 1:
1. THAT
Imran Khan has neither committed contempt of court under the law or the
Constitution nor would even think of doing so.
2. That
Imran Khan has not started any campaign either to scandalize the Court or to
bring judges into hatred, ridicule or contempt. On the contrary, he has always
struggled to uphold dignity and independence of the Supreme Court and the
judiciary in general.
3. That
Imran Khan believes in the rule of law, supremacy of the Constitution and
independence of judiciary and, for this reason, he and his party was in the
forefront of the movement for rule of law and restoration of judiciary.
4. That,
after the general elections, Imran Khan has repeatedly requested and appealed
to the Supreme Court to redress the grievance of his party which has suffered
massive electoral rigging at the hands of ECP and its officials. This clearly
establishes that Imran Khan and his party have high expectations from the
Supreme Court that justice would be done to them and that their grievance would
be redressed.
5. It
is respectfully submitted that the notice may kindly be recalled.”
“EXPLANATION No. 2:
Respectfully Submitted
1.
That the
press statement was made in good faith on 26th July, 2013 where in
reference to the ‘Judiciary’ was for the Returning Officers and/or District
Returning Officers (belonging to the Subordinate Judiciary), assigned to the
election process.
2.
That Mr.
Imran Khan has high respect and esteem for the Supreme Court of Pakistan and
has high expectations from this Honourable Court for redressal of the
grievances of the PTI arising out of the general elections.”
2. We have drawn his attention towards one
of the press clippings (Press Conference of Imran Khan dated 26.07.2013) which
is reproduced hereinbelow:-
3. Selection of the words used against judiciary, Mr. Hamid Khan argued,
is in a different context, for which explanation has been given and he has
pointed out the same verbally.
4. it was pointed out to him that the Judiciary (عدلیہ ) is required to be respected
and if there is any grievance, the remedy is available under the law, but using
the words “شرمناک “, prima facie, tantamounts to abusing the Judiciary.
The Courts try their best to avoid asserting itself in such like situation but
are compelled to look into a matter where not only the dignity or respect of a
Judge but of the entire Institution is involved, and the Courts are constrained
to call for an explanation. The explanations noted above have been examined
carefully and are hereby rejected not being satisfactory.
5. Learned counsel has
pointed out his grievance in respect of an application which was filed in
C.R.P. No.191/2012 in Constitution Petition No.87/2011 (Workers Party Pakistan
v. Federation of Pakistan etc.) as far back as 08.06.2013. He further stated
that the grievance of the Chairman PTI was that his application is not being
disposed of. We have pointed out to him that perhaps the correct facts have not
been brought into his notice as this application was returned by the office on
the same day by passing the following order:-
“That the
above titled C.M.A. filed by you is not entertainable on the ground that
instead of making this application in a pending Review Petition the applicant
should approach the appropriate forum and avail the proper remedy available
under the law, if so advised.
Hence this
C.M.A. in C.R.P. 191/2012 in Constitution Petition No.87/2011 is returned
herewith in original being not entertainable along with its paper books.”
6. Against the order of the
Institution Officer who exercises delegated powers of the Registrar of this
Court, a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.82/2013 was filed under Order V rule 3
of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and thereafter no request has been made for
fixation of the case either by the Senior ASC or his AOR. The cases are fixed
in the Supreme Court under policy guidelines and wherever there is any sort of urgency,
a request is to be made for out of turn fixation of the case, otherwise out of
total pendency, which is about 19,000 cases; it is not possible to fix all the
cases and dispose them of on the same day. However, by following procedure
under Supreme Court Rules, 1980 on an urgent application such appeals could
possibly be heard.
7. In addition to the
above, learned counsel has been appraised about 31 Election Petitions under
section 52 of the Representation of People Act, 1976 filed by the candidates of
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) before Election Tribunals requesting for, inter
alia, examining the thumb impressions of the voters through the process of biometric
system, particularly, in respect of the following four constituencies:-
|
S#
|
Constituency No.
|
Election Petition No.
|
Title of the case
|
|
1.
|
NA 122 Lahore-V
|
No.11(315)/2013
|
(Imran Khan Niazi vs. Sardar
Ayaz Sadiq and others)
|
|
2
|
NA-125 Lahore
VIII
|
No.11(194)/2013
|
(Hamid Khan vs. Khawaja Saad
Rafiqu and others)
|
|
3.
|
NA-110 Sialkot-I
|
No.11(344)/2013
|
(Usman Dar vs. Khawaja Muhammad
Asif and others)
|
|
4.
|
NA 154 Lodhran-I
|
No.11(355)/2013
|
(Jehangir Khan Tareen vs.
Muhammad Siddique Khan Baloch and others)
|
7. Learned counsel
requests for time to file reply of notice. Adjourned to 28.08.2013.
Chief Justice
Judge
Judge
Islamabad, the
2nd August, 2013
Nisar/*
No comments:
Post a Comment