• Says PTI lawyers ‘misled’ top court by saying protesters would not approach D-Chowk
• Holds lawyers responsible for assurances made without consulting party leadership, asks party to ‘reconsider’ its replies

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared perturbed over the apparent breach of trust committed by the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) on May 25, in spite of categorical assurances given by its counsels, and directed the former ruling party to submit fresh replies in the contempt case instituted against its leadership.

A five-member bench led by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial was hearing a contempt plea filed by the federal government over the alleged violation of the apex court’s May 25 order.

During the hearing, Justice Bandial regretted that PTI counsels Babar Awan and Faisal Fareed misled the court by stating that protesters would not attempt to reach D-Chowk and would remain at the agreed venue between sectors G-9 and H-9.

“Responsibility lies on the counsels or the person (Imran Khan) who stated that he has the highest respect for the court,” the CJP remarked.

The observation came in response to Oct 26 directions to the senior counsels and former prime minister Imran Khan to explain whether they were guilty of flouting the undertaking given to the court that the PTI workers would not reach D-Chowk.

Former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon represented both counsels, whereas the incumbent SCBA president and other counsels were present in the courtroom to express solidarity.

CJP Bandial, in an allusion to the violence that occurred on May 25 when PTI activists arrived at D-Chowk in spite of the undertaking, said the top court was “deeply disturbed” over what transpired after its directives and termed the statement made by the PTI counsels “mere excuses”.

Justice Bandial ordered the lawyers and Imran Khan to furnish their statement afresh by Saturday. The fresh replies should be backed with truth and in case of any error, let the court be informed instead of leaving it in a lurch, he added.

The court will likely take up the case next week.

During the hearing, the bench said it court wanted to ascertain what the counsels conveyed to the top leadership of the PTI and at what time.

It added that the court met four times on the day of the protest to ensure that sanity must prevail. “We have exercised great restraint,” the CJP observed.

During the hearing, PTI counsel Faisal Fareed came to the rostrum to explain that he had tried to reach Imran Khan at the time, but could not make the contact because of jammers in the former premier’s proximity.

It was impossible to establish contact with the PTI chief since the situation was tense all around, he said, adding that he was able to call PTI Secretary General Asad Umar to communicate the directives of the court.

Mr Fareed also accused the Islamabad administration of failure to facilitate them, in contravention of the court’s directives, to strike a deal with the government for a peaceful protest in the designated spot.

But tThe counsel was unable to explain whether Asad Umar was with Imran Khan when he called former. The CJP, however, described the explanation as mere excuses and regretted: “You bring 20,000 people to make the lives of 200,000 miserable.”

Justice Bandial regretted that the court did not “want to use its pen like a stick” and also referred to the Faizabad judgement by SC judge Qazi Faez Isa. In 2017, during the Faizabad sit-in, a person died in an ambulance. Should such an episode occur at every protest, Justice Bandial wondered.

“This is why the political leaders should become role models,” CJP observed and referred to a recent statement of PTI leader Azam Swati, who described custodial torture as an attack on his dignity.

“This statement touched us because dignity is a fundamental right,” the CJP said, wondering how could a political leader who wanted to form a government under the constitution violate the fundamental rights of the people.

Even Justice Ijazul Ahsan, a member of the bench who had presided over the three-member bench on May 25, had to intervene. Pointing towards the counsel, he observed that the lawyer had “misused the court order” which was issued on their categorical assurance and provided PTI access to the ground between the G-9/H-9 sectors with directions to the administration to remove blockades since PTI leadership and party supporters were pinned at the Attock bridge amid heavy shelling.

Justice Ahsan added that the government was emphasising that it removed all barricades on the court’s direction and regretted that the court had always placed its trust in counsels.

The court was “deeply disturbed” that the senior counsels gave assurances to the court without confirmation from the party leadership, he said, asking whether the counsel tried to contact Asad Umar again.

They contacted Asad Umar only once, when a second contact could have been established as well to communicate the May 25 court order. When you launch a protest, you have to keep the peace without disturbing it, the CJP observed, adding that the tragic events of May 25 would never have been triggered had the court order been obeyed.

Mr Fareed highlighted that the situation was very tense on the day of the protest, adding that the counsels were not allowed to interact with the media and that the administration did not provide any facility to reach a certain understanding about holding the sit-in at G-9/H-9 ground.

At this, the CJP observed that the terms of the order which was issued at 6:00 pm were communicated across Pakistan through the media. He said that the court met four times on that day to ensure order, saying that the government was even directed to arrange an alternate venue for the sit-in and release of the PTI supporters detained by the authorities. “The court created the element of balance,” the CJP said.

Justice Bandial also rejected the statement that the counsel went to meet the committee at 10pm formed on the direction of the court for peaceful protest and observed by that time, the situation had already worsened. The counsel could have approached Asad Umar again, but it was not done, CJP said.

The SC judge further asked why the PTI leadership was present on the tailend of Jinnah Avenue, even though the decided site for the protest was H-9/G-9 ground. The counsel responded that the administration never facilitated him and that the situation had already escalated when he and Babar Awan went for a meeting at the Chief Commissioner’s office at 10pm.

Published in Dawn, November 3rd, 2022