☰
IHC judges give diverging rulings on access to Imran in jail
ISLAMABAD: Two benches of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) issued contrasting rulings on identical cases concerning access to imprisoned former prime minister Imran Khan.
IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, on a petition filed by Imran Khan’s sister Noreen Niazi, directed the jail authorities to facilitate her visit to her brother on Oct 26 once a ban on inmate meetings, imposed due to security concerns, is lifted.
In contrast, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan ordered the jail authorities to produce Imran Khan in court while hearing a petition from a lawyer seeking contempt proceedings against the jail superintendent for denying access to the former prime minister. The jail superintendent had informed the court that meetings were banned until Oct 25 due to security threats.
During the hearing, Justice Khan remarked that the court would not accept security concerns as a valid reason to prevent the PTI leader’s appearance, stressing that the court’s authority is supreme.
The judge instructed jail authorities and government officials to ensure adequate security measures for Mr Khan’s court appearance.
“This notification is a violation of my orders,” Justice Khan said, suggesting that preventing Imran Khan’s legal team from meeting him under the pretext of security threats amounted to contempt of court. He instructed officials to submit a security report explaining why Mr Khan’s lawyers had been barred from access.
Following the court’s directive, jail authorities hurriedly arranged a meeting between Mr Khan and his legal team.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Farooq accepted the jail authorities’ explanation and asked them to arrange a meeting between Imran Khan and his sister once the ban on inmate meetings is lifted.
Legal experts, while highlighting the differences in the handling of these identical matters, pointed out that the government’s legal team had failed to adequately assist Justice Khan’s bench.
They suggested that the government’s law officer should have referenced a ruling by a two-member bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC), comprising Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Jawad Hassan, which defined the scope of contempt of court laws.
The LHC ruling stated: “It is obvious that under the contempt laws, no further jurisdiction has been conferred to the court except to punish the contemnor and to sentence him with imprisonment and fine or otherwise.”
Moreover, the notification imposing the ban on inmate meetings was issued by the Punjab government, while the jail is located within the jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. This meant that the IHC lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition, a legal expert pointed out.
The expert noted that a recent amendment to Article 199 of the Constitution bars high courts from granting relief beyond what is sought in an application. The amendment specifies: “The high court shall not make an order or give direction or make a declaration on its own or in the nature of suo motu exercise of jurisdiction beyond the contents of any application.”
He suggested that the government’s legal team should have brought this to the judge’s attention during the hearing.
Imran-lawyers meeting
PTI lawyers held a meeting with incarcerated party leader Imran Khan at Adiala Jail.
Speaking to the media after the meeting, Advocate Faisal Chaudhry stated that Imran Khan remains in high spirits. He added that Mr Khan thanked the courts for granting bail to his wife, Bushra Bibi, and for allowing his legal team to meet him.
Mr Chaudhry said that Mr Khan condemned the ban on meetings with his relatives and lawyers.
Advocate Shoaib Shaheen quoted Mr Khan as saying that there could be no investment in Pakistan without the rule of law.
Meanwhile, PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan stressed that Bushra Bibi had endured nine months of imprisonment without betraying Imran Khan.
He hoped that Mr Khan would also be released soon, reiterating that both Mr Khan and his wife stood firm and had not entered into any deals or compromises. “Imran Khan remains steadfast in his stance,” Barrister Gohar said.
Published in Dawn, October 25th, 2024
Read Comments