PTI Chief Imran Khan has expressed ‘deep regret’ over his ‘unintentional utterance’ against Islamabad Additional Sessions Judge Zeba Chaudhry and has also offered to express ‘remorse’ to the woman judge, whom he had issued a threat during a public rally in Islamabad last month.
However, the PTI chief has stopped short of offering an unconditional apology to the judge — often a basic requirement in contempt of court cases.
Instead, he urged the court to discharge him from the case under the Islamic principles of forgiveness and restraint and on the basis of his claim that he was ‘not aware’ that he was commenting on a sub judice matter.
The Islamabad High Court had granted one week’s time to Imran Khan when a larger bench, headed by IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah heard the contempt of court case against the PTI chief on August 31 to submit a fresh reply. The court had declared his reply submitted to the court a day before the hearing as inappropriate.
In the past contempt of court cases have led to the disqualification of public office holders including former Prime Miniter Yousaf Raza Gillani. Experts believe Imran Khan also faces the same risk, especially over his failure to offer an unconditional apology.
The PTI chief opened his 10-page reply by expressing gratitude to the Islamabad High Court saying that he “gratefully acknowledges the indulgence shown by this Honorable Court in providing him an opportunity to reflect upon the whole issue and its significanc.”
The reply said that Imran Khan “takes this opportunity to express his deep regrets over his unintentional utterances during the course of his speech at a rally which was taken out in response to shocking news of physical torture of Mr. Shahbaz Gill.”
“It is stated with respect that those utterances were unintentional and not mean to be directed towards the lady judge for whom [Imran Khan] has a lot of respect,” the reply further read.
“The respondent never meant to hurt her feelings and if her feelings have been hurt, it is deeply regretted. The respondent neither meant to threaten the lady judge nor could be think of doing so,” the reply added.
After asserting that he had great regard for the lower judiciary and that he supported women’s rights in Pakistan, Imran Khan said that he assures the high court that he would “not shy away from expressing his remort to her.”
Khan brings up how court was criticized by his opponents
Imran Khan also said that after the Islamabad High court granted him the opportunity to submit a supplementary reply, it was criticized by PTI’s opponents.
“In oder to gain political advantage, [the court] has been bitterly criticized out of all proportions by those who see an opportunity for political point scoring and to oust the respondent from the polical arena.”
The PTI chief also brought up the FIR registered against him under terror charges following his threat to Judge Zeba Chaudhry.
The FIR was registered on the complaint of a magistrate and the anti-terrorism court is hearing the case. Imran Khan last week won bail in the case.
In the reply submitted to IHC, Iman Khan said the FIR was meant to politically ‘persecute’ him.
The fresh reply also addresses several points raised by the larger bench of the Islamabad High Court at its August 31 hearing.
The court had reprimanded Khan for commenting on Shehbaz Gill’s physical remand order, which was a sub judice matter.
Imran Khan said that he was ‘not aware’ that the matter was sub judice when he made the comment and believed that after the grant of Gill’s it had ended there.
The PTI chief said that he was moved by the visuals of Shehbaz Gill gasping for breath and “had [he] been briefed about the legal effect and consequences of the pendency of the case before this Honourable Court, [he] would have avoided any comment during the course of his speech which was exempore.”
Imran Khan said that now he has been briefed about the technical rule of sub juice matter.
‘Earlier contemnors expressed no remorse’
The reply cited several earlier contempt cases and said that “it is apparent from the record that despite several opportunities given to the contemnors in those caes they expressed no remorse or regrets.”
Imran Khan also said that politicians who faced contempt of court cases in the past were accused of scandalizing the courts.
The reply cited the cases of PMLN’s Tallal Chaudhry and Daniyal Aziz.
“Unlike the repeated attacks on the judiciary in those cases, it is submitted that in the present case on the contrary, the Respondent did not adamantly stick to those words uttered during the course of his speech, but sincerly tried to explain and offered totake them back.”
Imran appeals to Islamic principles of ufve and forgiveness
The former prime minister also said that “the purpose of the contemp law is not to punish anyone but to uphold the majesty of law” and that the courts have “alway recognized and followed the Islambic principles of forgiveness and restraint. The Respondent beseches that the said Islamic principles of ufve and forgiveness would also be followed in this case.”
The reply ended with a plea to the court that it discharge Imran Khan of the show-cause notice issued to him earlier by accepting his explanation.
