29 C
Lahore
Tuesday, September 27, 2022
Search
Generic filters
EditorialImran Khan's apology

Imran Khan’s apology

Imran Khan, the head of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI), should have apologised at the first hearing of the contempt proceedings against him for making inappropriate statements against a lower court judge. It’s never too late to make a rational decision, and on Thursday, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) put off taking action against Imran Khan for contempt after he said that he was prepared to apologise to Additional District and Sessions Judge Zeba Chaudhry. Imran Khan is subjected to contempt charges for his criticism of Judge Chaudhry at a rally in Islamabad’s F-9 Park on August 20. Judge Chaudhry had ordered PTI leader Shahbaz Gill’s physical detention in a sedition case. If the PTI chairman maintained his position and refused to apologise, it was anticipated that Imran Khan would be in trouble. Several politicians in the country have been disqualified for making derogatory comments against judges. Because the IHC had deemed the PTI leader’s response to the case “unsatisfactory” at the previous hearing, Imran Khan was scheduled to be indicted at the hearing on Thursday.

The Thursday hearing, however, saw Imran Khan’s remorse or apology for his words against the judge, and that he “may have crossed a red line” and that he may not repeat such things in the future, the bench deferred the indictment. The bench showed their satisfaction with Imran’s words and action “He wanted to assure the Hon’ble Judges of this Court that he was willing to clarify before the Hon’ble Judge of the District Court that neither he nor his party sought any action against the Hon’ble Judge of District Court and that he would willingly apologize to the Hon’ble Judge if she felt that the respondent had crossed a line.”  The case seems to head to the conclusion, as the court has asked Imran Khan to submit an affidavit and that “if you have realised [your] mistake and ready to apologise for it […] that is enough”.  The case leaves a case study for politicians and the general public: think twice before you speak, and never try to scanadlise the judiciary.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Subscribe Today

GET EXCLUSIVE FULL ACCESS TO PREMIUM CONTENT

SUPPORT NONPROFIT JOURNALISM

EXPERT ANALYSIS OF AND EMERGING TRENDS IN CHILD WELFARE AND JUVENILE JUSTICE

TOPICAL VIDEO WEBINARS

Get unlimited access to our EXCLUSIVE Content and our archive of subscriber stories.

Top News

More articles