–IHC order says PM made factually incorrect statements because he was not ‘properly briefed’
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday dismissed a contempt of court plea against Prime Minister Imran Khan, saying the courts do not fear criticism nor are they sensitive about it.
The petition, which was filed by Advocate Saleemullah Khan on Monday, said that the premier had “committed serious contempt” in his speech after the court allowed former prime minister Nawaz Sharif to exit Pakistan without submitting the surety bond sought by Imran government.
During the speech, he had urged Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmed to “restore public confidence in the judiciary”, as “there were separate laws for the powerful”. The premier said there was a perceived disparity in how the powerful and common people were treated in the country’s judicial system.
However, he was rebutted by the CJP, who had advised the PM to refrain from taunting the judiciary, as it doesn’t differentiate between the rich and poor.
During the proceedings, IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah, who was hearing the petition, asked the appellant: “What problem do you have with the prime minister’s speech?” The petitioner responded that the prime minister had “ridiculed the judiciary”.
“The courts welcome criticism,” said Justice Minallah. Saleemullah said that there was a “difference between criticism and contempt”.
“Do you want a trial of an elected prime minister?” Justice Minallah asked. “Do you know the outcome of such a move? Do you want the prime minister to be disqualified?”, he questioned while reserving the verdict.
The court resumed after recess, with Justice Minallah dismissing the petition at the start. He said: “The courts do not discourage the exercise of general right of criticism made in good faith and which does not obstruct or impair the administration of justice and the right of a litigant to a fair trial.”
The court observed that Prime Minister Imran has been elected to the highest executive public office by the Pakistani people and “his role in the 2007 historic lawyers’ movement […] is indeed acknowledged”.
According to the order, the court is satisfied that “regardless of the selection of words”, the premier could not have intended to undermine the integrity of the administration of justice or the prestige of the courts.
The court stressed that the benefit of doubt must always go in favour of the representatives of the people. “Even otherwise utmost restraint ought to be exercised in initiating contempt proceedings against an elected prime minister because of its consequences, which may, inter alia, lead to disfranchising the people of Pakistan and depriving them from the right to choose as to who should represent and govern them,” it added.
“This court, therefore, presumes that the worthy prime minister was not properly briefed, which had led to the factually incorrect statements made during his speech,” the order concluded.
