The Supreme Court of Pakistan has issued a court contempt notice to the leader of the PakistanThree K-e-Insaf, Imran Khan, due to his remarks against the court in his three consecutive media talks on 26th , 29th and 30th July, 2012. If the SC finds him guilty in the court contempt case, khan could be disqualified for five years from the Assembly membership and from the party office. SC took sou-moto notice against Imran Khan
and the first
order in suo-moto said that prima facie, it appears that Khan has started a planned campaign to scandalize the court and fetch judges into abhorrence and contempt. It says that the Khan action of court contempt comes under Article 204 of the Constitution read with Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003.
The advocate Muhammad Azhar Siddique was of the view that Imran Khan deliberately made ridiculous allegations against the judiciary. He added that Khan should make an apology from the apex court.
On the other hand the Justice (Retd) Wajihud Din, who was the PTI Presidential candidate in recent elections, said Imran Khan had not made critical remarks against the Supreme Court, rather he criticised the role of Returning Officers who were not performing the judicial duties while holding the 11th May elections. READ MORE
and the first
order in suo-moto said that prima facie, it appears that Khan has started a planned campaign to scandalize the court and fetch judges into abhorrence and contempt. It says that the Khan action of court contempt comes under Article 204 of the Constitution read with Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003.
The advocate Muhammad Azhar Siddique was of the view that Imran Khan deliberately made ridiculous allegations against the judiciary. He added that Khan should make an apology from the apex court.
On the other hand the Justice (Retd) Wajihud Din, who was the PTI Presidential candidate in recent elections, said Imran Khan had not made critical remarks against the Supreme Court, rather he criticised the role of Returning Officers who were not performing the judicial duties while holding the 11th May elections. READ MORE
No comments:
Post a Comment