SC drops charges against ‘unyielding’ Imran
Imran says the sole objective of his statement is to ensure free and fair elections are held in the future.
Imran angered the top court last month when he called the judiciary’s role in the May 11 elections ‘shameful’. PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed contempt of court charges against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan even though he refused to apologise over his ‘offensive’ comments.
Imran angered the top court last month when he called the judiciary’s role in the May 11 elections ‘shameful’. Later, he clarified that he was only criticising the role of the returning officers in a bid to strengthen democracy in the country. His explanation, however, failed to satisfy the court which asked his counsel to submit a comprehensive response on August 28 (Wednesday).
Since the opening of the case, Imran had been adamant that the word ‘shameful’ was not contemptuous. On Wednesday too, he refused to apologise even with ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’, despite the judges’ insistence.
That would have been it for the case was it not for Attorney General Munir A Malik’s intervention. “It doesn’t matter who accused the Supreme Court … [or] if ‘X’ made some comments against ‘Y’ … since this is not a case pertaining to non-compliance [of the court orders], the court should exercise restraint,” he told a three-judge bench, headed by Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali.
Immediately after Malik’s argument, the bench said, “The case is discharged.”
Earlier during the proceedings, Justice Ijaz Chaudhry, who was also on the bench, told Imran that the standard course for litigants in such cases was to apologise even if their comments had been misconstrued.
“Even if your words have been misunderstood, you should tender an apology if they have hurt someone,” he said.
“Alright, but sorry for what,” Imran shot back.
“Please understand what you have misunderstood … I [only] criticised the presiding officers for their complicity in rigging the general elections,” he said, reiterating that his words were never meant against the superior judiciary.
“The word ‘shameful’ was used for the conduct of the presiding officers, not for the judiciary … the PTI’s 2,500-page white paper documents this rigging,” said Imran. He added that the sole objective of his statement was to ensure free and fair elections were held in the future.
Imran’s clarification couldn’t satisfy the bench which insisted that the word ‘shameful’ was ‘abusive’ if used for the judiciary. Justice Jamali suggested that the PTI chief should provide a ‘better definition’ for the word if he wasn’t willing to say sorry.
Imran’s counsel referred to Article 204 of the Constitution and insisted that his client did not ‘ridicule, scandalise or disobey’ the judiciary. Article 204 deals with matters pertaining to contempt of court.
After the case was disposed of, both Imran and his counsel thanked the attorney general for his intervention during the proceedings.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 29th, 2013.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed contempt of court charges against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan even though he refused to apologise over his ‘offensive’ comments.
Imran angered the top court last month when he called the judiciary’s role in the May 11 elections ‘shameful’. Later, he clarified that he was only criticising the role of the returning officers in a bid to strengthen democracy in the country. His explanation, however, failed to satisfy the court which asked his counsel to submit a comprehensive response on August 28 (Wednesday).
Since the opening of the case, Imran had been adamant that the word ‘shameful’ was not contemptuous. On Wednesday too, he refused to apologise even with ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’, despite the judges’ insistence.
That would have been it for the case was it not for Attorney General Munir A Malik’s intervention. “It doesn’t matter who accused the Supreme Court … [or] if ‘X’ made some comments against ‘Y’ … since this is not a case pertaining to non-compliance [of the court orders], the court should exercise restraint,” he told a three-judge bench, headed by Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali.
Immediately after Malik’s argument, the bench said, “The case is discharged.”
Earlier during the proceedings, Justice Ijaz Chaudhry, who was also on the bench, told Imran that the standard course for litigants in such cases was to apologise even if their comments had been misconstrued.
“Even if your words have been misunderstood, you should tender an apology if they have hurt someone,” he said.
“Alright, but sorry for what,” Imran shot back.
“Please understand what you have misunderstood … I [only] criticised the presiding officers for their complicity in rigging the general elections,” he said, reiterating that his words were never meant against the superior judiciary.
“The word ‘shameful’ was used for the conduct of the presiding officers, not for the judiciary … the PTI’s 2,500-page white paper documents this rigging,” said Imran. He added that the sole objective of his statement was to ensure free and fair elections were held in the future.
Imran’s clarification couldn’t satisfy the bench which insisted that the word ‘shameful’ was ‘abusive’ if used for the judiciary. Justice Jamali suggested that the PTI chief should provide a ‘better definition’ for the word if he wasn’t willing to say sorry.
Imran’s counsel referred to Article 204 of the Constitution and insisted that his client did not ‘ridicule, scandalise or disobey’ the judiciary. Article 204 deals with matters pertaining to contempt of court.
After the case was disposed of, both Imran and his counsel thanked the attorney general for his intervention during the proceedings.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 29th, 2013.