The PTI leader’s long march to Islamabad was rejected by the Supreme Court on Wednesday. Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial suggested that the government should hold talks with the former prime minister.
The PTI leader was charged with contempt of court by the federal government for his lengthy march to the federal capital.
Imran Khan is making pronouncements to harm Islamabad, according to the government’s lawsuit, which it said violated a court injunction. It pleaded with the supreme court to instruct the PTI leader to see that its directives on protests and sit-ins are carried out.
Today’s hearing was conducted before a five-judge panel presided by by Chief Justice of Pakistan Bandial and including Justices Ijaz ul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, and Sayyed Mazhar Ali Akbar Naqvi.
Khan had previously stated that the PTI would begin its lengthy march on October 28 (Friday) in Lahore.
All party members, sympathisers, and leaders will assemble at Lahore’s Liberty Chowk at 11 a.m., according to the former prime minister, from where they would march toward Islamabad.
Supreme Court rejects the government’s request to instantly end the PTI’s protracted march and suggests speaking with Imran Khan instead
Aamir Rahman, the additional attorney general, claimed at the hearing that the police and intelligence institutions’ reports had been examined.
The court had initially inquired as to when the PTI chairman had issued a call for the long march, according to the additional attorney general.
He said that the court order was issued on May 25 at 6 o’clock, and that Khan made his first announcement at 6:50 o’clock and his second at 9:54 o’clock.
He explained, “The PTI has asked to hold a sit-in at the Srinagar Highway. Khan had already made plans to visit D-Chowk prior to the court decision.
Rahman claimed that afterwards PTI leaders Fawad Chaudhary, Shireen Mazari, Sadaqat Ali Abbasi, Usman Dar, Shahbaz Gill, and Saifullah Niazi also called on party members to report at D chowk.
The court also requested Khan’s response to the plea for launching a contempt case against him.
The CJP noted as he asked the PTI chairman to clarify before the court who said what: “From Khan’s comments, it seems like he was briefed of the court’s directives as he mentioned that the SC ordered removing barricades.”
Referring to the conclusion of the PTI’s long march at Jinnah Avenue on May 26, Rehman said that Khan’s most recent request to travel to D-chowk constituted a violation of the court’s order.
He claimed that Khan “passed the restricted area H9 and reached Blue Area where he concluded the rally.”
According to the additional attorney general, PTI attorneys Babar Awan and Faisal Chaudhry gave the court their word that they would stay out of the restricted area.
Following this, CJP Bandial stated that since Rehman’s argument had some merit, it would be best to have a response from those who had provided assurance.
Justice Bandial stated at the hearing that Khan should provide an answer because the reports had sufficient support.
“It is not required for Khan to attend, even if a notice is delivered,” he declared.
The court merely wants the rule of law to triumph, the chief justice continued, not to grab headlines. When a show-cause notice in a civil contempt action is served, he continued, “one needs to appear.”
According to Justice Yahya, the court cannot request a response from anyone without prior notification.
The PTI leader should respond in light of these reports, according to the court, which also ordered to provide Khan access to the police, ISI, and IB reports.
Babar Awan and Faisal Chaudhary, attorneys representing the former PM, were also questioned by the Supreme Court.
The CJP stated, “We are not yet issuing notice,” adding that doing so would create the impression that the procedures had begun.
Meanwhile, in accordance with the earlier divergent note, Justice Yahya served a show-cause notice on Khan.
The PTI chairman and his attorneys must provide an answer by October 31 per the court’s direction.
The hearing was postponed until October 31 by the court.
Earlier in the hearing, AAG Rehman told the court that PTI has filed a miscellaneous appeal asking for an order to suspend the long march right now.
As he issued the summons to march, CJP Bandial noted that the plea had now become effective.
Justice Afridi commented that it would be preferable for the government to withdraw its request for orders to stop the long march in order to avoid any negative legal ramifications.
The SC is “neither an executive nor does it want to be one,” CJP Bandial stated. No one’s right to demonstrate can be taken away, he continued.
He emphasised, however, that the demonstration should stay within the bounds of the law.
The CJP noted that the circumstances of May 26 are unclear and said that the violation of the affidavit “has to be looked at prima facie in the context of the facts.”
At this point, the assistant attorney general asked for time to receive new instructions from the government regarding the plea and demanded that the long march of PTI be stopped.
The court granted the request and assured the administration that it may contact it if any problems arose prior to October 31.
