ISLAMABAD, Aug 2: It was a battle of wits between the Supreme Court and Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chairman Imran Khan. Attired in a dark grey shalwar-kameez, Mr Khan appeared before a three-judge bench in the courtroom-1 on Friday to face charges of contempt.

Short of expressing regrets or remorse for the utterances he had made at press conferences on three occasions about the role of judiciary in the May 11 elections, Mr Khan offered two different explanations.

But the Supreme Court was not convinced and expressed its dismay over the choice of words he had used, particularly the one “Sharamnak” (shameless).

The court repeatedly said that Mr Khan was a national leader and words like ‘shameless’ amounted to abusing the judiciary.

Mr Khan later quipped outside the court building that he had come to know for the first time in his life that ‘shameless’ was an abusive word.

The PTI chief entered the court premises amid greetings and slogans by his party supporters. Tight security measures and the presence of a large number of his supporters caused a traffic jam on the Constitution Avenue.

The courtroom was packed to capacity. Mr Khan was accompanied by Javed Hashmi, Jehangir Tareen, Shireen Mazari and other party leaders.

The Supreme Court refused to accept the explanations, but Mr Khan’s counsel Hamid Khan, who cut short his vacation in the United States to defend his party’s chief, managed to get an opportunity to submit a concise statement on August 28.

The court had taken exception to what it called derogatory remarks made by the PTI chief against the judiciary at the press conferences on July 26, 29 and 30 and asked him to appear before it on Friday to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.

By standing behind the rostrum for a brief statement, Mr Khan joined the list of politicians who had earlier faced contempt charges like former prime ministers Yousuf Raza Gilani and Raja Parvez Ashraf, Rehman Malik, Babar Awan, Taj Haider and Sharjeel Memon — all from the PPP — and MQM chief Altaf Hussain.

In his statement, Mr Khan grumbled over what he called the court’s indifference towards complaints filed by members of his party in the apex court against massive election riggings and said he was the only politician who had spent eight days in jail during the struggle for independence of judiciary.

Although Mr Khan had criticised the apex court for its decision to advance the date of the presidential election, in the courtroom he deliberately avoided mentioning it.

Rejecting his first statement, the court allowed him to draft a proper explanation in consultation with his counsel. But when the case was taken up again, Hamid Khan read out a single-page statement saying that the July 26 press statement had been made in good faith and the word ‘judiciary’ was used as a reference for returning officers and district returning officers (belonging to the district judiciary) involved in the election process.

The counsel said Mr Khan highly respected the Supreme Court and had high expectations from it for addressing the grievances of the PTI arising out of the general elections. He requested the court to recall the contempt notice and said there was no question of ego. Mr Khan did not want to scandalise the judiciary. “We will always stand for the dignity of the judiciary,” he said.

But even this could not appease the court.

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, a member of the bench, expressed disappointment over the statement and asked if the next elections should be conducted by DPOs, DCOs or Tehsildars.

Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja said the statement had come as a surprise for him, adding that he would prefer to go home if there was no honour or dignity.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry asked what expectation the PTI would have when the next elections would be held by maligning the district judiciary and reminded that the local government elections were in the offing.

Hamid Khan explained that a large number of complaints and cases had created such perceptions about the role of the lower judiciary and its role was criticised not because of judicial functions but because of administrative functions in the conduct of elections.

The chief justice recalled that Yousuf Raza Gilani had been disqualified as a member of parliament on a petition of Imran Khan, although the then attorney general had repeatedly requested the court to avoid taking up the matter.

The court observed that the judiciary was required to be respected and if there was any grievance the remedy was available under the law.

“Courts try their best to avoid asserting in such situation but are compelled to look into a matter where not only the dignity or respect of a judge but of the entire institution is involved and the courts are constrained to call for an explanation,” the chief justice said.

The court said 31 election petitions under section 52 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1976, had been filed by PTI candidates requesting for examining thumb impressions of voters through the process of biometric system, particularly in respect of cases filed by Hamid Khan, Imran Khan Niazi, Usman Dar and Jehangir Tareen. “These cases have been referred to the election tribunals,” it said.