ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered all police officials charged with contempt of court for roughing up former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on March 13, 2007, be sent to jail.

“We find no merit in these appeals [against an earlier court order sentencing the police officials to imprisonment] which are dismissed,” said an order authored by Justice Gulzar Ahmed. The verdict also carried directions to the police personnel present in the courtroom to immediately take into custody the officials charged with contempt, not including those who had been earlier sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The court sent the arrested police officials to serve their sentences at the Rawalpindi Central Prison.

Following the announcement of the verdict, the accused policemen present in the courtroom were arrested. They include former inspector-general of police Chaudhry Iftikhar Ahmed and Senior Superintendent Police retired Capt Zafar Iqbal, both of whom were sentenced to 15 days in jail. Deputy Superintendent Police Jamil Hashmi, Inspector of Police Rukhsar Mehdi and Assistant Sub-Inspector Mohammad Siraj were sentenced to a month’s imprisonment. Former Islamabad chief commissioner Khalid Pervaiz and deputy commissioner Chaudhry Mohammad Ali were not arrested as they were earlier sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court.

As DSP Hashmi was being taken into custody, he told reporters that the court’s verdict had proved that the justice system was, indeed, blind, as he had not even been present at the scene to commit the crime he had been charged with.

Cops were accused of manhandling former CJP Iftikhar Chaudhry in 2007

The officials had entered appeals against a Nov 1, 2007 order of the Supreme Court, in which senior administration officials of Islamabad and police personnel were accused of manhandling retired justice Iftikhar Chaudhry as they attempted to prevent him from walking towards the apex court to answer allegations of misuse of office before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).

However, soon after it was announced, the sentence was suspended for 15 days at the request of the convicted officials who wanted time to appeal against their convictions. Later, a 10-member bench barred the respective departments from taking any adverse action against the appellants till the appeals were pending.

On Wednesday, a five-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, which had taken up intra-court appeals against the 2007 order, announced the verdict.

Justice Gulzar Ahmed observed in his order that considering the grave nature of contempt of court charges, the court had been quite lenient with the officials.

The order also observed that the gravity of the conduct of the appellants had to be taken seriously as the officials had physically roughed up, manhandled, pushed, bundled and physically forced the honourable chief justice of Pakistan, head of the highest judicial forum of the country, into a car.

This, in itself, constituted contempt of court, the order noted, by which a person holding the highest judicial office of the country had been manhandled, restrained physically in public and in the presence of print and electronic media. This cannot be considered a minor incident in which the accused could be let off after submitting an unconditional apology, the verdict said.

Rather such conduct merits exemplary punishment, the judgement noted, adding that the appellants had jolted and rattled the very edifice of the judicature. It had also seriously undermined and brought the authority of the court and administration of justice into disrespect and disrepute, the verdict said.

The unconditional apologies submitted by the appellants had not been presented when the contempt proceedings began, the verdict noted, adding that the apologies submitted did not express genuine remorse. It added that they appeared to be half-hearted attempts to complete a formality, and explained that the appellants had even tried to justify their conduct, which is why the court had initiated contempt proceedings. The order added that in the unconditional apologies presented to the court, all the appellants had admitted to their conduct in the March 13, 2007 event.

Published in Dawn, June 7th, 2018