LHC rejects Iqbal's petition to adjourn contempt hearing until polls
Iqbal had requested for the case to be adjourned till election as court appearances were affecting his election campaign
June 22, 2018
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Friday rejected former interior minister Ahsan Iqbal's petition to delay contempt proceedings until after elections.
The civil miscellaneous application against Iqbal was filed by Munir Ahmad in a pending petition against anti-judiciary speeches by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and 16 other leaders of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).
A full bench headed by Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi was hearing the petition today.
As the hearing went under way, Iqbal's lawyer Azam Nazeer Tarar told the court that his client had already asked for pardon.
Iqbal informed the court that his election campaign was being affected due to his court appearances. He requested the court to adjourn the proceedings till after election.
The court then rejected the request and ordered Iqbal to submit a detailed response. It informed the defendant that it was his right to submit a request to be exempted from appearing in court.
Justice Atir Mehmood remarked that the incidents of contempt had taken place because of the judiciary's forebearance.
Furthermore, Justice Naqvi observed that the court had inquired the defendant multiple times whether the ceremony where he had discussed the judiciary was an appropriate venue for the topic. "You did injustice to the nation," he said.
The hearing was then adjourned till June 29.
The case
The petitioner Munir Ahmad had said that Iqbal, then interior minister, and Nawaz Sharif had used derogatory language against the Supreme Court judges on April 25 and 23 respectively and the same was aired by tv channels.
He had contended that the respondents' action was barred under Articles 68 of the Constitution but the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) did not take any action despite being empowered by the PEMRA Ordinance.
Ahmad submitted that the authority failed to implement provisions of PEMRA ordinance and the court orders of April 16, therefore, contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents.
