Jang Group served contempt notices over ‘false reporting’

SC seeks explanation for publishing piece relating to ISI's alleged role in Panama Papers case

Hasnaat Mailk July 10, 2017

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has issued contempt notices to Jang Group on publishing a ‘controversial’ story relating to the role of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in the Panama Papers case.

A three-judge bench – headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan – issued contempt notices to owners Mir Shakeelur Rehman and Mir Javedur Rehman, and reporter Ahmad Noorani over ‘false reporting’ relating to the case.

Justice Afzal asked them to submit a reply within a week as to why the court should not initiate proceedings under Article 204 of the Contempt Ordinance 2003 against them.

During Monday’s hearing, the bench asked about the whereabouts of Noorani, who had filed a story that the top court had directed the ISI to look after the JIT affairs. Justice Afzal expressed annoyance over attributing the false story to him. Another Judge Justice Ijaz ul Ahsen said misreporting was evident in the story.

'There is a conspiracy against democracy in Pakistan'

The bench asked who was representing The News in the courtroom. Sohail Khan, a court reporter of the newspaper, came to the rostrum. The bench pointed out that the newspaper had reported that the prime minister’s son Hussain Nawaz’s plea - for constitution of a commission to identify the person who had leaked his picture on social media - was rejected by the apex court, while at the time it was still pending.

The apex court has also sought details of advertisements given by the government to different media groups.

The bench also summoned the transcript of the speeches of Federal Minister for Railways Khawaja Saad Rafique, PML-N leaders Talal Chaudhry and Asif Kirmani against the JIT. The court also asked the JIT head to disclose the name of the official who leaked Hussain’s picture.

Facebook Conversations

COMMENTS (1)

London Banker | 3 years ago | Reply | Recommend Very key: How much is paid for advertisements. The court must ban this.
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

Load Next Story