MUZAFFARABAD: The Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Supreme Court on Wednesday gave “yet another chance” to an outspoken opposition lawmaker to clarify his alleged remarks about the superior judiciary after a group of lawyers moved an application in the apex court for initiation of contempt of court proceedings against him.

In his speech on the floor of the Legislative Assembly on May 24, Sardar Khalid Ibrahim, chief of Jammu Kashmir People’s Party (JKPP) had alleged, among other things, that the recent appointment of five judges in the AJK High Court was the result of a “deal” on abolition of the AJK Council.

The speech earned Mr Ibrahim the ire of the apex court, which issued him a notice for a clarification before senior judge Raja Saeed Akram on June 5.

However, the JKPP chief announced at a presser that he would not comply with the notice.

On June 3, he addressed another presser to reiterate his earlier stance and said he would prefer to face detention than clarifying his statement. As Mr Ibrahim did not appear before the senior judge on June 5, the latter placed the matter before the CJ for constitution of a larger bench.

Since the AJK’s superior judiciary does not enjoy suo motu powers, a group of five lawyers, one of them related to a newly appointed judge, came in aid to the apex court by moving an application for initiation of the contempt of court proceedings against Mr Ibrahim.

In a two-page order in Urdu, the division bench, comprising Chief Justice Chaudhry Muhammad Ibrahim Zia and the senior judge, maintained that it had carefully examined the statements of Mr Ibrahim which established that prima facie he had violated Article 30-A of the AJK Constitution by discussing the judiciary and the conduct of judges on the floor of the house.

The said conduct of the respondent not only amounted to the contempt of court but his both statements were also cognizable under Article 24 of the Constitution and section 5 (2) (vii) of the AJK Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance 1979, the bench added.

Legally, expression and publicity of contemptuous and ridiculous views against the independence and integrity of the judiciary could lead a public representative to disqualification.

Thereby both of his statements, prima facie, provide ground for his impeachment under Articles 24, 30-A and 45 as well as section 5 (2) (vii) of the AJK Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970, it added.

The bench said that though the respondent had refused to comply with the court notice and had “confessed, admitted and emphasized” his act, the court was empowered to further proceed against him without serving additional notices, yet he was being given one more chance to fulfill the demands of justice.

Published in Dawn, June 7th, 2018