IHC provided a thorough verdict, stating that Imran demonstrated “genuine intentions.”
In their dissenting opinion, Justices Kayani and Sattar argue that the “benefit of doubt” should not be given to the PTI head in the contempt case.
ISLAMABAD: On Thursday, the Islamabad High Court issued its detailed verdict in the contempt case against PTI chairman and former Prime Minister Imran Khan for threatening Additional District and Sessions Judge Zeba Chaudhry. The court noted that it was satisfied with the former Prime Minister’s apology and consequently dropped the charges against him. The verdict can be found here.
A larger bench consisting of five judges, including the Chief Justice of the IHC at the time, Athar Minallah, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, and Justice Babar Sattar, observed that a speech of this nature was not something that was anticipated from a political leader.
On the other hand, it stated that Imran had shown up in court and apologised for the things that he had spoken.
In addition to this, it was mentioned that the chairman of the PTI had apologised to Judge Zeba in front of the court.
According to the comprehensive judgement, there was “hence no reason not to grant the benefit of the doubt to Imran Khan’s conduct.” [Citation needed]
“Imran Khan’s attitude, explanation, apologies, and especially his appearance in the court of the district court judge demonstrated his good intents,” the statement continued. “[H]is appearance in court of the district court judge was extremely telling.”
Earlier on Wednesday, October 3, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) reversed its decision to issue a show-cause notice to the head of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in connection with the “threat” that he made against Judge Zeba at a speech on August 20.
The ruling stated that “satisfied with Imran Khan’s apologies, there is no reason to take the contempt of court proceedings further.” It went on to say that the show-cause order that had been issued against the PTI chairman would be withdrawn and that he would be freed from the case.
However, in the full judgement, Justice Kayani filed a note of dissent because she disagreed with the part that talked about giving the defendant the “benefit of the doubt.”
Imran was not charged with any crime, as Justice Kayani pointed out. In light of this, he went on to suggest that it was appropriate to refer to him as having been “pardoned.”
An additional note was written by Justice Sattar on the previously discussed paragraph.
He believed that Imran’s speech included elements of both judicial and criminal contempt, and he believed that Imran had admitted to the conduct of delivering a provocative statement.
Justice Sattar made the observation that the nation was in the throes of polarisation, and that competing political parties were having a difficult time using a discussion and debate within the executive and legislative branches of state government to resolve their disagreements in the year leading up to general elections.
The judge made the observation that “if the judiciary were also denuded of its ability to resolve disputes between the state and citizens or between rival political parties, there would remain no institution capable of issuing declarations of legality within the four corners of the Constitution,” as previously mentioned.
“In this context,” he continued, “any attempt by a political actor to pressurise and intimidate the judiciary into producing favourable decisions, and bringing the administration of law into disrepute and the judiciary into hatred or ridicule could not be shrugged off as being of no consequence.” “In this context,” he said, “any attempt by a political actor to pressurise and intimidate the judiciary into producing favourable decisions could not be shrugged off as being of no consequence.”
In light of these facts, Justice Sattar explained in his written decision that he was dismissing the case against the PTI head under Section 18 rather than giving him the “benefit of the doubt.”
