Connect with us

Politics

SC rejects govt’s request to immediately stop PTI’s long march, advises talks with Imran Khan

Published

on

  • CJP heads 5-member bench to hear govt’s contempt plea against Khan.
  • No one can be deprived of the right to protest, chief justice says.
  • SC orders PTI chief, his lawyers to submit answers by October 31.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the federal government’s request to immediately stop PTI chief Imran Khan’s long march to Islamabad, with Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial advising the government to hold talks with the former prime minister. 

The federal government filed a contempt of court plea against the PTI chairman in the Supreme Court over his long march to the federal capital. 

In its petition, the government said, “Imran Khan is making announcements to attack Islamabad”, which it claimed was a violation of a court order. It urged the apex court to direct the PTI chief to ensure the implementation of its orders related to protests and sit-ins.

A five-member bench, headed by CJP Bandial, comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Sayyed Mazhar Ali Akbar Naqvi heard the plea today. 

A day earlier, Khan said PTI will kick off its long march on October 28 (Friday) from Lahore.

The former prime minister said that all party workers, supporters and leaders will gather at Lahore’s Liberty Chowk at 11am from where they will march towards Islamabad.

Today’s hearing

In his arguments during the hearing, Additional Attorney General Aamir Rahman said that the reports of police and intelligence institutions have been reviewed.

The additional attorney general said that the court had first asked when did the PTI chief give a call for the long march.

He said that the court order came on May 25 at 6pm, while the announcement was made by Khan at 6:50pm and he made the second announcement at 9:54pm.

“The PTI had requested to stage a sit-in at the Srinagar Highway,” he said. “Khan had also announced to go to D-Chowk even before the court order.”

Rahman said that later PTI leaders Shireen Mazari, Fawad Chaudhary, Sadaqat Ali Abbasi, Usman Dar, Shahbaz Gill, and Saifullah Niazi also gave a call to party workers to arrive at D chowk.

Meanwhile, the court sought a response from Khan over the plea seeking contempt proceedings against him.

“From Khan’s statement, it seems like he was informed about the court’s orders as he said that the SC ordered removing barricades,” the CJP remarked as he summoned the PTI chairman to clarify before the court who said what.

Rehman contended that Khan’s latest call to reach D-chowk is a contempt of court, he said, while referring to the end of PTI’s long march at Jinnah Avenue on May 26.

“Khan crossed the restricted area H9 and reached Blue Area where he ended the rally,” he said.

The additional attorney general further stated that PTI lawyers Babar Awan and Faisal Chaudhry assured the court that they would not cross the restricted area.

At this, CJP Bandial said that Rehman’s argument has some weight therefore it would be better to seek a response from those who assured.

‘Not necessary’

During the hearing, Justice Bandial said that the reports have enough justification that Khan should submit an answer.

“Even if a notice is served, it is not necessary for Khan to appear,” he said.

The chief justice added that the court doesn’t want to make the headlines, it only wants the rule of law to prevail. “One has to show up when a show-cause notice in the contempt case of civil nature is served,” he added.

Justice Yahya said that the court cannot seek an answer from anyone without notice.

The court also directed to provide the police, ISI, and IB reports to Khan and said that the PTI chief should provide an answer in light of these reports.

The Supreme Court also sought answers from former premier’s lawyers Babar Awan and Faisal Chaudhary.

“We are not issuing notice as of yet,” said the CJP, adding that a notice would give an impression that the proceedings have started.

Meanwhile, Justice Yahya issued a show-cause notice to Khan according to the previous differing note.

The court ordered that the PTI chairman and his lawyers should submit an answer by October 31.

The court adjourned the hearing till October 31.

SC is ‘not an executive’

Earlier during the hearing, AAG Rehman informed the court that there is a miscellaneous plea seeking orders for PTI to immediately stop the long march.

At this, CJP Bandial observed that the plea has now become effective as he has given the call to march.

However, Justice Afridi remarked that it would be better if the government takes back the plea for orders to stop the long march or it will have legal effects.

Meanwhile, CJP Bandial remarked that the SC is “not an executive nor it wants to be one”. No one can be deprived of the right to protest, he added.

However, he stressed that the protest should be within the limits of laws.

“In the context of the facts, the violation of the affidavit needs to be looked at prima facie,” the CJP observed, adding that the events of May 26 are not clear.

At this, the additional attorney general sought time to take new directives from the government regarding the plea, seeking orders to stop PTI’s long march.

The court accepted the request, assuring the government that the court can be approached if any issue occurred before October 31.

Latest News

Bushra Bibi maintains bail as the IHC concludes the FIA’s petition.

Published

on

By

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) conducted a hearing about the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) plea for the revocation of Bushra Bibi’s bail.

The court, led by Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, rejected the FIA’s petition during the hearing.

Judicial Proceedings

Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb sought information regarding Bushra Bibi’s location, to which her attorney, Barrister Salman Safdar, affirmed her attendance in court.

The judge urged the counsel to regard the matters with gravity, underscoring the necessity of adherence to trial protocols.

The court sought details about instances where Bushra Bibi had been exempted from attending trial hearings and clarified that if the High Court grants bail and the accused fails to appear, the trial court holds the authority to cancel the bail.

Justice Aurangzeb assured that such actions would not amount to contempt of the High Court’s order.

Based on these considerations, the court closed the proceedings and dismissed the FIA’s plea.

Continue Reading

Latest News

The Supreme Court has granted the appeal of the PTI founder for a judicial probe into the events of May 9.

Published

on

By

The Supreme Court has officially accepted the plea submitted by the PTI chairman for a judicial probe into the events of May 9 for a comprehensive hearing.

The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court annulled the registrar’s office’s objections to the petition and instructed the office to allocate a case number and arrange the hearing.

The PTI chairman was represented by prominent attorney Hamid Khan, who appeared in court to argue for the petition’s admission.

The Lahore Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) already convicted Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan in connection with the incidents on May 9 and denied his bail on eight distinct counts.

The court’s finding was delivered in a six-page written order by ATC Judge Manzar Ali Gul.

The written ruling emphasized substantial evidence against the PTI founder, comprising audio and visual recordings of his directives to incite violence.

The court observed that witnesses had provided testimony on the conspiracy planned by Imran Khan at Zaman Park, where he purportedly strategized for his possible arrest by intending to disrupt state functions via his supporters.

Imran Khan’s legal counsel contended that he was in custody at the time of the incidents, proposing that bail be granted in accordance with precedents where bail was awarded in like circumstances following detention.

Nevertheless, the court rejected this argument, underscoring that the case’s nature was not a trifling issue of conspiracy or incitement.

The prosecution established that Mr. Khan had explicitly incited assaults on military and governmental facilities and had galvanized both his commanders and supporters to adhere to his directives.

The decision additionally cited the Lahore High Court’s finding regarding a prior release granted to Ijaz Chaudhry, highlighting Imran Khan’s involvement in the conspiracy. The court dismissed the defense’s challenge over the prosecution’s lack of specificity concerning the date, time, or location of the purported conspiracy, affirming that the scheme was allegedly devised on May 7 and May 9 at Zaman Park.

The prosecution asserts that undercover police officers, masquerading as PTI supporters, intercepted discussions outlining the scheme.

Continue Reading

Latest News

188 cases nationwide have been filed against the PTI founder.

Published

on

By

This increase, according to details, followed the submission of a report to the Islamabad High Court in response to a petition brought by Norin, the sister of the PTI founder.

Punjab has the most cases against Imran Khan (99), according to the Ministry of Interior’s report that breaks down the cases by area.

There are 76 cases in Islamabad, according to the Islamabad Police data, compared to two in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

In addition, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) is investigating three instances, while the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) is still investigating seven cases.

Cases against Imran Khan also concern the protests in October, November, and December. In addition, there is an ongoing appeal in the Toshakhana criminal case against his sentencing.

Yesterday, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder along with 60 other PTI leaders were indicted in the GHQ attack case.

Imran Khan and sixty other party leaders were charged in the GHQ attack case by Judge Amjad Ali Shah of the anti-terrorism court.

Imran Khan, who is presently detained at Adiala Jail, was released on bail in the Toshakhana case but was arrested again by the police in the New Town PS case.

Continue Reading

Trending