Early hearing of contempt plea against PTI sought

Interior ministry urges court to initiate proceedings for defying May 25 orders

ISLAMABAD:

The interior ministry on Monday moved the Supreme Court (SC) seeking early contempt of court proceedings against the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leaders, including Imran Khan, for entering the red zone during a protest against court orders.

On May 25 last year, the apex court had issued clear instructions to the PTI for holding its Azadi March protest near Peshawar Mor between the H-9 and G-9 areas of Islamabad.

However, Imran and his protestors had made their way toward D-Chowk, prompting the government to call in the Pakistan Army for the security of the capital's red zone.

At the time, then-Attorney General for Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf had filed an application seeking contempt of court proceedings as well.

However, a five-member larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, had refused to initiate contempt proceedings against Imran over the non-implementation of its May 25 order.

Later, the Ministry of Interior Affairs had also filed a contempt of court application for violating the court orders.

Read Govt appears to backtrack on talks with PTI

Subsequently, in December, a five-member larger bench, headed by the CJP heard the petition and raised questions on the locus standi of the interior ministry to file the application in the first place.

The case was then adjourned for hearing until the following week but has since not been fixed before the court for five months.

The interior ministry now filed a request for an early hearing of the contempt case against Imran, urging to fix the case for hearing on April 26 after Eid holidays.

The application stated that because "the matter involved of the citizenry at large and the security and protection of the people of Pakistan, assets of the country which have been ruined by the PTI workers on the command of the respondent Chairman [Imran], therefore the present case of urgent nature and needs to be heard and decided by this apex court at an early date".