ISLAMABAD: Short of tendering an apology PTI chief Imran Khan expressed the hope on Monday that former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry would not go for a personal litigation against him.

This was stated in a reply filed in response to a Rs20 billion defamation notice sent by Justice Chaudhry to Mr Khan on July 24.

The six-page reply filed by senior counsel Hamid Khan, who is also PTI’s senior vice president, and Ahmed Awais said: “With due respect to your goodself and to the office that you have held, we believe that it may not be appropriate for a former chief justice to enter into any personal litigation.”

But in a clarification which appeared to negate what had been stated in the reply, the PTI chief’s spokesperson Shireen Mazari said that Mr Khan had categorically stated that he stood by all he had said about Justice Chaudhry and his role in the 2013 election rigging, along with returning officers (ROs) and others.

Mr Khan stated that he had supported the former chief justice in his fight against a dictator and reminded that he had led the movement for restoration of the judiciary and gone to jail for that. However, he stood by every word he had said about Justice Chaudhry’s role in last year’s general elections. “Anything that detracts from this is an incorrect representation of his views,” the clarification said.

Besides that, Mr Khan in his address to his supporters at the sit-in also criticised the former chief justice for his role in the 2013 elections and the PTI core committee expressed resentment over what it described as the softly-worded response to the defamation notice.

PTI chief’s lawyers file reply to defamation notice

On the other hand, Sheikh Ehsanuddin, a former president of the Rawalpindi High Court Bar Association, told Dawn that a panel of lawyers of Justice Chaudhry would decide a future line of action after going through the reply.

The reply praised Justice Chaudhry’s role in establishing rule of law, delivering the July 31, 2009 landmark judgment and spearheading the lawyers’ movement and said the focus of plaintiff (Justice Chaudhry) had always been on rendering service to the country and never caring about making money.

It said: “We are aware that in the past you (ex-CJ) have shown immense courage and tolerance in the face of expression that could otherwise cause mental agony and harassment, particularly during the course of lawyers’ movement for restoration of judiciary.

“In any case, our client (Mr Khan) never meant to cause any mental agony or torture or harassment or humiliation to you. We deeply appreciate your desire to contribute to the causes of the downtrodden sections of society.

“Our client has always been working for public causes, particularly those meant for weaker sections of the society. He will expect your contribution towards such causes in the future. There was no nefarious design on part of Mr Khan and he did not mean to cause injury to your reputation.

“We believe whatever has been said by Mr Khan was an expression of disappointment and frustration due to the failure of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the judiciary to dispense justice to him and his party at every level after the polls. The language used may not be appropriate but unfortunately so is the nature of discourse during public meetings and political press conferences.

“Unfortunately, during the most sensitive days of the general elections, writing to ROs directly and then addressing them at different places like Karachi, Hyderabad, Lahore, Peshawar and Quetta created a general perception that these ROs have been given the blessings and free rein by the judiciary and that they could use blessings to do whatever they choose to do.

“With due respect, it is stated that allegations of rigging against ROs do not involve their judicial office or character. After the appointment as DROs and ROs, they were supposed to report to the ECP and not to the judiciary. We believe that choice of words may not be correct, however Justice Chaudhry has always shown understanding and tolerance towards language that was used during the meetings and by speakers, particularly in the days of lawyers’ movement.”

Published in Dawn, August 26th, 2014