LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Tuesday directed a lawyer to come up with arguments on the maintainability of his petition seeking contempt proceedings against PML-N chief organiser Maryam Nawaz for her alleged attempts to scandalise the judges of the Supreme Court.

Advocate Shahid Rana, the petitioner in person, contended that Maryam in her speech at a recent public meeting in Sargodha used ‘contemptuous’ words against the judges of the apex court. He said all the television channels broadcasted and the print media published the speech of the respondent.

The lawyer argued that Maryam had committed a contempt of court under Article 204 (2) (b) of the Constitution and under Article 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003. He was of the view that the respondent could not propagate the misconduct, if any, of a judge or a court but could inform the president or the Supreme Judicial Council by filing a reference under Article 209 of the Constitution.

He asked the court to punish Maryam Nawaz under the law.

Justice Shujaat Ali Khan adjourned hearing till Wednesday (today) and directed the petitioner to bring arguments on how the petition was maintainable before the court.

Gill’s plea: A Lahore High Court judge on Tuesday proposed a larger bench to decide a petition of PTI leader Shahbaz Gill against inclusion of his name in the Exit Control List (ECL).

Justice Jawad Hassan observed that fundamental rights of every citizen enshrined under Article 15 of the Constitution, providing freedom of movement (inside or outside Pakistan) was involved in the matter.

He said the interpretation of articles 3, 9 and 14 of the Constitution read with relevant provisions of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance 1981 and the Foreigner Act 1946 was also required.

Therefore, the judge observed, “this court thinks fit to refer the matter with permission of the honourable chief justice for the constitution of a larger bench”.

Justice Hassan referred the matter to the chief justice for its adjudication by a larger bench.

Gill through a counsel pleaded that he had been implicated in multiple ‘baseless’ cases at the behest of the federal government. He said the Federal Investigation Agency on the instructions of the interior ministry placed him on the ECL. He argued that the impugned action of the respondents was a clear example of sheer political victimisation.

He asked the court to declare the impugned act of the respondents illegal and order them to remove his name from the ECL.

Published in Dawn, March 1st, 2023