Woman draws LHC's ire for filming inside court
CJ Aalia Neelum questions woman's credibility after false statements and address discrepancies

The Lahore High Court (LHC) has sought a written explanation from a woman who allegedly recorded a video inside the courtroom of Justice Ali Zia Bajwa, an act that prompted Chief Justice Aalia Neelum to take suo motu notice of the incident.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Neelum observed that the woman, identified as Romaila, had made false statements before the courtan act she later admitted and apologised for.
The court noted that she had also provided an incorrect residential address, which was later verified by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) to be located in Murree.
The Chief Justice remarked that the woman's earlier misrepresentations had compromised her credibility and rejected her request to record another statement during the proceedings.
Addressing the defense, Justice Neelum reminded the counsel of his professional oath, stating, "You have taken an oath as a lawyer, so you should speak on her behalf. The court cannot rely on the woman's statement."
The woman's counsel acknowledged his client's mistake and requested the court's leniency, stating that she accepts her error and seeks forgiveness.
However, Chief Justice Neelum declined to accept the defense arguments and instructed the lawyer to submit a detailed written explanation.
Following the directive, the court adjourned further proceedings until the next hearing, when the counsel is expected to file the written clarification.
Meanwhile, SP Gujranwala presented a NADRA-verified family certificate of the woman before the court.
It may be recalled that on September 10, Romaila allegedly recorded a video inside the courtroom during an ongoing hearing before Justice Ali Zia Bajwa, an act that led the Chief Justice to take suo motu notice to examine the violation of court decorum and procedural rules.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ