Low Graphics Site
White bar
.: Latest News :. .: News in Pictures :.
Dawn e-paper
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Horoscope Recipes Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker



Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Weather


FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon TV Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Irfan Hussain Jawed Naqvi Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story

May 25, 2007 Friday Jamadi-ul-Awwal 08, 1428







Govt seeks action against Imran



By Our Reporter


ISLAMABAD, May 24: Barrister Mohammad Ali Saif, a member of the panel of lawyers defending composition of the Supreme Judicial Council, on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to take suo motu notice of what he called contemptuous remarks made by Imran Khan.

Speaking at a press conference, Barrister Saif said that Mr Khan’s remarks that the people would take to the streets if the case was not decided in favour of the Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry fell in the ambit of contempt of court. He said the government side might file a contempt case against Mr Khan, adding that the apex court could also take suo motu notice of it.

He defended President Pervez Musharraf’s remarks that “the victory of falsehood would be something that would make him weep”, by saying that weeping did not amount to committing contempt of court.

He said Mr Khan’s statement was entirely different and was tantamount to threatening the court and an attempt to pitch the Army and the masses against each other.

He said that unwarranted arguments expressing no confidence in the SJC by the defence side were in clear violation of the code of conduct spelt out by the council itself.

He said that remarks describing the SJC as an adversary and casting aspersions on the integrity of a member of the council and trying to create an impression that he was biased and had malice towards the defence side were inappropriate.

He said the remarks about what the defence side called “military dispensation” were meant to create an impression of confrontation between the Army and the judiciary. “If the president is to be criticised, it must not be in the context of the proceedings of a case,” he stressed.






Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2007