No contempt case against advocate who maligned SC judges
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court decided on Thursday not to initiate contempt proceedings against an advocate who had hurled accusations against judges and raised objections about composition of the bench hearing PTI Chairman Imran Khan’s plea to quash an FIR over the murder of a lawyer in Quetta.
“After deliberations, the unconditional apology rendered by the learned counsel for the complainant was accepted,” said a two-page order issued by a three-judge Supreme Court bench. The bench consisted of Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi.
The proceedings turned unpleasant on Wednesday when Amanullah Kanrani, the advocate for Siraj Shar, the son of Abdul Razzaq Shar, objected to the presence of two judges on the three-member bench. Although Mr Kanrani refused to tender a written apology, he expressed verbal regrets, with folded hands, for his behaviour. He, however, said the court should not “become a party. It should decide the matter on merit”.
The two judges are Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi.
On Wednesday, Justice Yahya Afridi had observed that the court would issue a written order in this regard.
The order, which was released on Thursday, stated that the counsel for the complainant (Siraj Shar) was asked to address the court regarding the allegations made in the FIR.
Instead of focusing on the issue at hand, the order added, the counsel raised objections regarding composition of the bench.
When the bench asked Amanullah Kanrani to give specific examples, he withdrew the allegation and submitted an apology, the court order said.
After deliberations, the “unconditional apology” tendered by Mr Kanrani was accepted, the order said.
The apex court adjourned the hearing to Aug 24. It made it clear that a previous order not to arrest former prime minister Imran Khan during the investigations would remain in force.
The order further said that since no substantial arguments had been heard on the merits of the petition and since the present bench may not be available on the next date of hearing due to summer vacations, this petition will not be treated as a part-heard case and may be fixed for hearing before any bench available on the date fixed.
Published in Dawn, August 11th, 2023