The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday reserved its decision on whether a contempt of court petition against lawyer and activist Imaan Mazari is admissible.
The petition was filed over her remarks about subordinate court judges, but the bench raised serious questions over the grounds of the case.
Petition filed over statement on judges
The petitioner, Hafiz Ehtesham, argued that Imaan Mazari had given the impression in her speech outside the press club that judges of the subordinate judiciary were divided and working under pressure. He maintained that such remarks amounted to contempt of court.
During the hearing, the petitioner read excerpts of Mazari’s statement, pointing out that she had targeted the Rawalpindi trial court judges and accused them of weakness.
When the petitioner claimed Mazari’s comments suggested a division among the judges, Justice Kayani immediately pressed him: “Which judges are you talking about?”
Judge warns petitioner to stay within limits
At one point, petitioner Hafiz Ehtesham said Justice Kayani himself was among the five judges being referred to. This remark angered the judge, who sternly warned him: “Stop here, don’t say a single word further. Stay within the scope of your case. There is no division in this court and we will not even allow it.”
Justice Kayani stressed that the statement could reflect a personal opinion but did not establish that the judiciary was divided. “There is no division in this court,” he remarked firmly.
Justice Kayani questions contempt grounds
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, who presided over the hearing, repeatedly questioned whether the petition qualified as contempt. “How does what you are saying amount to contempt of court?” he asked the petitioner, noting that everyone has freedom of expression, including journalists and vloggers.
The judge further observed: “She is pointing out weak judges -- what is wrong with that? There are good judges and there are incompetent judges.”
Judges must complain themselves, says court
The bench highlighted that no judge of the subordinate courts had complained about Mazari’s statement. “Did the trial court judge complain about it anywhere?” Justice Kayani asked.
“The judges themselves should tell us if their self-respect has been hurt. If someone other than the judges tells us, the impression will be different,” he added.
He further pointed out that judges themselves often give speeches at bar councils, which also include criticism and opinions.
Court reserves decision on admissibility
After completing preliminary arguments, Justice Kayani announced that the court would first determine whether the petition is admissible. “We will see if the petition qualifies before proceeding further,” he said, reserving the order.
