The Supreme Court will resume hearing today (Monday) in a contempt of court case against Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader and Minister of State for Interior Talal Chaudhry. Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar had taken suo motu notice of the minister’s alleged derogatory and contemptuous statements and speeches against the apex court at PML-N public gatherings. A three-member bench comprising Justice Gulzar Ahmad, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Faisal Arab will hear the case. Deputy Attorney General, who is prosecutor in the case, will appear before the court on notice. Senior advocate Kamran Murtaza will appear for Talal Chaudhry. Talal, who was indicted on March 15, 2018, on contempt of court charges, once against pleaded the court through a three-page application on last hearing to withdraw the charges since he faced no allegation of prejudicing any matter pending before the court. In his plea, he had stated that he honestly believed that he had neither uttered anything nor acted in a manner which might be construed as causing obstruction of the process of the court in any way or that any order of the court had been disobeyed. According to him, scandalizing the court or acting for bringing it into hatred, ridicule or contempt is not even the last thing on his mind and whatever has been stated may have been taken into account without relevance to the context due to media reporting. “Needless to add that chief justice of the Supreme Court has himself recently observed that speeches made by various persons are misconstrued and depicted in negative phraseology in order to sensationalise certain matters and issues,” he added. Talal furnished that he exercised his right of free speech and expression within the four corners of law. He explained that as a democratic worker and parliamentarian, he always ventured to uphold the constitution. This court being the custodian of the fundamental rights was a symbol of utmost respect for him and he firmly believed that he had never intentionally or unintentionally committed any action which might be construed as contempt of the court, he stated. He explained that he was a law-abiding citizen and in his capacity as a parliamentarian and member of the legal fraternity, he had a conviction that the respect of an individual flowed from the right guaranteed by the constitution and the laws of land. However, this element of guarantee of respect has to be reciprocated by the individuals from their conduct and actions of adherence to law. He asked the court to order provision of the material/content so that he could furnish his reply after going through the material in issue. Published in Daily Times, May 21st 2018.