A "Sharmnak" Judgment?

Finally the Supreme Court has made the drop scene of the contempt of court notice case by disposing the notice against PTI Chief Imran Khan. We know very well that the Supreme Court had issued the contempt of court notice to Imran Khan for having used the Urdu word “Sharmnak” (Shameful) when referring to the courts. Previously, the SC had also rejected the Imran Khan`s two previous explanations terming them as unsatisfactory. On the hearing of August 28 too, the Imran Khan`s third reply could not convince the Supreme Court judges to consider his very famous word “Sharmnak” as acceptable.  

A per the media reports, one of the Judges pointed out that the PTI chairman had not even expressed his regret. The Supreme Court judge also added that Imran Khan would have to prove that the word “Sharmnak” (shameful) could have been used for positive meanings too. In short, the Supreme Court was not satisfied with the stance of the Imran Khan`s lawyer, that is why it gave some more time to Imran Khan to reconsider his stance. At that point, it was very much clear that the Supreme Court had rejected all the explanations given by the PTI chairman and it expressed its annoyance that Imran Khan did not regret on his act. In other words, the PTI chairman was supposed to either prove “Sharmnak” as a positive word or had to express his apology on it. Otherwise, the Supreme Court could have declared him convicted of the contempt of court.

However, the surprising element of the post-break hearing came up when, instead of the IK`s lawyer, the Attorney General of Pakistan Mr. Muneer A Malik, defended Imran Khan saying that the PTI Chairman had always respected the judiciary and had not meant to disgrace the courts at all. He further argued that there would be no impact on the image of the Supreme before the common people even if someone tried to malign it. After these arguments, the Supreme Court disposed the notice of contempt of court. The question is, who was to plead the Imran Khan`s case before the court? Was that Hamid Khan Advocate or the Attorney General who is the employee of the PML-N-led government? Legally speaking, can a third person start representing an accused especially without formally submitting a written consent to the Supreme Court for it? Furthermore, can a case ever be finally decided just on the arguments of the third party who was not legally in a position to represent the accused?

By the way, who was required by the apex court to give explanation on the matter under trial after the break? Hamid Khan or Muneer A Malik? Moreover, if the “explanation” of an Attorney General is of so much importance for our Supreme Court, was the similar value ever given to the clarifications from other attorney generals of the PPP government who kept on repeating that none of the accused of the contempt of court had meant to disrespect the judiciary?

Importantly, did Imran Khan or his advocate successfully prove the term “Sharmnak” as “Qabl-e-Ahtram” due to which the Supreme Court disposed the contempt of court notice? If not, did he request for forgiveness from the Supreme Court by taking back his words? When neither of the requirements fulfilled, how was the notice disposed? Practically, when no new clarification was submitted by the IK`s lawyer in the court, for which one more chance had been given to him, on what basis did the Supreme court finalize the case? Can the Supreme Court present any written explanation or apology, as required by the SC itself, submitted from the IK`s lawyer after the break that satisfied the Supreme Court judges? When no, can the judicial proceedings of the case be considered legally complete?

Moreover, when according to the argument of Muneer A Malik that, “There will be no impact on the image of the Supreme before the common people even if someone tries to malign it” and the Supreme Court can ignore the words or comments of a person about it, why were the other politicians not dealt with in the same way? Why were they required to seek apology on their words?  Similarly, during the hearing, the judge Zaheer Anwar Jamali commented, “If we declare the word “Sharmnak” as appropriate, it would become an example, and we would protect the Institution in any case”. So after the Supreme Court`s verdict, what sort of example has been set for others? When Imran Khan, despite using an abusive word, can be given a clean chit without either proving the word “Sharmnak” as praiseworthy, or expressing apology on it, isn`t a very disappointing message for all those who disagree with the Supreme courts judgments, yet have been avoiding such comments for the judiciary?

Now, would the Supreme Court of Pakistan like to let the people of Pakistan know what the legal and constitutional meaning of “Sharmnak” has been decided during the case? Should it be used to convey positive feelings or the negative ones? By taking into account all these things, if the people of Pakistan term the verdict as “Sharmnak”, would the Supreme Court consider it as shameful or honorable? It`d better decide it by itself!