Daily Times

The Supreme Court Thursday raised questions about the maintainability of a petition against the PTI chief Imran Khan and others for ‘inciting the people against the state institutions’. A division bench of the SC led by Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan heard the petition filed by lawyer namely Qosain Faisal who had sought the apex court’s directions to the party’s leaders, including Imran Khan, to stop giving statements against the institutions and establish a commission to take further action against the party leaders. During the proceedings, Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan asked the petitioner counsel Hassan Raza Pasha which of the fundamental rights are violated.

“Which law is violated by respondents,” the court asked while also questioning why the petitioner did not approach relevant forum to redress his grievances. The SC judge also asked how the case is a matter of public importance. “Could the court intervene in a matter under Article 184/3 out of public interest against private persons?” questioned the judge. “Why should the court hear this case?” Justice Ijazul Ahsan questioned, to which advocate Faisal responded by saying that ” Imran Khan and other leaders made derogatory statements against the supreme judiciary, the Election Commission, and the armed forces”. However, Justice Yahya Afridi maintained that the lawyers’ argument remained unclear. “Have the courts been rendered weak following someone’s comments?” he retorted. “The SC has the authority to evoke Article 204 in contempt of court. Whenever the court deems it appropriate, it will take notice itself and take action,” said Justice Afridi. “Your job was to inform the court, you have done so, that is it,” he continued. “It would have been appropriate for you to have gone to another forum for proceedings,” the judge remarked. “The petitioner is a Pakistani citizen and his sentiments were hurt by the statements made against the institutions,” responded the lawyer.

“Will the court now take action if someone’s feelings are hurt?” retorted Justice Ijazul Ahsan. The bench also asked the petitioner to submit transcripts and relevant material to establish that respondents gave statements against state institutions. Commenting on the matter, Justice Ijazul Ahsan said that “the statements may have been reported on the media”, he remarked “only a handful are reporting correctly these days”.