An early hearing of the contempt plea against the PTI has been requested, and the Interior Ministry is urging the court to commence proceedings against PTI for ignoring the directives from May 25.
ISLAMABAD: On Monday, the interior ministry petitioned the Supreme Court (SC) to order the beginning of contempt of court proceedings against Imran Khan and other PTI leaders for entering the red zone during a demonstration against court orders.
The PTI received clear directions from the Supreme Court on May 25 of last year regarding where and when to stage its Azadi March protest near Peshawar Mor between the H-9 and G-9 neighborhoods of Islamabad.
The Pakistan Army was requested by the government to secure the red zone of the capital because Imran and his protesters had advanced on D-Chowk.
Ashtar Ausaf, Pakistan’s then-attorney general, had also submitted a request for the initiation of court-ordered contempt proceedings at the time.
However, a larger bench of five judges, presided over by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, declined to hold Imran in contempt for disobeying its May 25 order.
Later, the Ministry of Interior Affairs had also submitted a request for contempt of court due to the court orders being broken.
A five-member bigger bench led by the Chief Justice of Pakistan then heard the case in December and voiced concerns about the interior ministry’s locus standi in submitting the plea in the first place.
The hearing on the case was subsequently postponed until the next week, but it has now been scheduled before the court for five months.
In order to arrange the case for hearing on April 26 after Eid holidays, the interior ministry has now submitted a plea for an early hearing of the contempt case against Imran.
Because “the matter involved the citizenry at large and the security and protection of the people of Pakistan, assets of the country which have been destroyed by the PTI workers on the command of the respondent Chairman [Imran],” the application stated, “the present case is of an urgent nature and needs to be heard and decided by this apex court at an early date.”
