KARACHI, Nov 1: The Sindh High Court asked the newsmen who reported Chief Minister Dr Arbab Ghulam Rahim’s remarks allegedly justifying the wall chalking against its chief justice to submit their statements by Nov 12.

A five-member bench comprising Justices Sarmad Jalal Osmany, Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Mushir Alam, Mohammad Moosa K. Leghari and Zia Pervez was hearing a contempt case initiated by a report of the SHC registrar. The registrar cited press reports quoting the CM as saying that the chalking reflected public opinion. The court found the CM’s remarks prima facie contemptuous and issued him a notice.

Advocate Omar Hasan Sajjad filed the CM’s reply on behalf of his father, Advocate Wasim Sajjad, and requested the bench to adjourn the hearing as Mr Sajjad was busy before the Supreme Court in the presidential poll case. The bench told him that it had already adjourned the case once because of Mr Sajjad’s non-availability and the CM should make an alternative arrangement if the counsel engaged by him was unable to appear.

In his reply, the CM denied having made the objectionable remarks and said he held the judiciary in high esteem. Referring to the context, he recalled he had hurriedly addressed a press conference on Oct 2 to announce that MPA Abdul Rehman Rajput had broken ranks with the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal and refused to resign from the provincial assembly. At the fag end, some reporters asked him irrelevant questions about the wall chalking around the high court and he told them that he was not aware of it. Neither he nor his government, the CM said, had anything to do with it and that they should address their queries to those responsible for writing the objectionable slogans.

The chalking, the CM clarified, did not represent his views, though it might be the opinion of those who wrote it. His remarks were reported differently by a few newspapers who published them the next day. He issued a clarification, which was carried by most of the papers as compared to a few dailies which published his alleged remarks. The clarification as carried by the press was annexed to the reply.

Asking the reporters concerned to file their affidavits, the bench adjourned further hearing to Nov 12.