IHC forms three-member bench to hear Imran's appeal against ECP show-cause notice

Top election body issued Imran show-cause notice, asked him to appear in person on September 14

ISLAMABAD: The chief justice of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has formed a three-member bench to hear an appeal against the show-cause notice served to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf chief Imran Khan by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for committing contempt of court.

PTI founding member Akbar S Babar had filed the contempt application against Imran for accusing the ECP of bias and using slanderous language against it after the commission had demanded that PTI submit its financial documents.



The ECP had then sent a show-cause notice dated August 24 and ordered Imran to appear in person on September 14 and explain as to why an appropriate order under the Contempt of Court Law is not passed against him. In case Imran failed to show up, “the Commission shall proceed in accordance with law’, the notice had stated.

Imran then challenged the ECP show-cause notice in the Islamabad High Court. After preliminary hearings on August 30, a single-judge bench of Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb had reserved its judgement to hear the case on September 11.

Through the reserved order, Justice Aurangzeb approached the IHC chief justice requesting him to form a larger bench in view of the serious legal questions raised in the matter.



As a result, the IHC CJ, Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi has reportedly formed a special three-member bench comprising of Justice Amir Farouq, Justice Mohsin Kiyani, and Justice Miangul Aurangzeb to hear Imran’s contempt case appeal on September 11.

The ECP show-cause notice had accused the PTI chief of using “derogatory remarks against the Commission thereby scandalising the Commission which tends to bring the Commission to hatred, ridicule and contempt”.

The notice accused Imran of having “chosen not to submit an unconditional apology thereby obstructing the administration of justice and willfully flouting the directions of this Commission”, and despite being given repeated opportunities “refused to tender unconditional apology in utter disregard of this Commission’s direction.”