PTI’s contempt plea: Why was Naqvi left out?

Questions have emerged within and outside the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) over the party’s decision to name Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif as a respondent in its contempt of court petition concerning the Supreme Court’s order to transfer Imran Khan to Shifa International Hospital, while Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi was not included.

Sources familiar with the matter said the decision appeared to differ from the position taken by PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan during a parliamentary party meeting.

The central issue is whether the contempt petition was primarily intended to secure implementation of the Supreme Court’s August 18 order or to seek action against officials allegedly responsible for failing to comply with it.

According to sources, the matter was discussed during a PTI parliamentary party meeting. Barrister Gohar reportedly stressed that the issue should not be given a political colour and that the party’s lawyers should handle it on legal and professional grounds, keeping the interests of Imran Khan, who remains incarcerated, at the centre of the proceedings.

The stated objective was to ensure implementation of the Supreme Court’s directive for Imran Khan to be shifted to Shifa International Hospital and provided medical treatment under arrangements specified by the court.

Sources said Gohar’s position was that contempt proceedings should focus on securing compliance with the judicial order rather than targeting political figures for punishment.

The meeting also discussed the possibility of focusing the legal proceedings on senior administrative officials responsible for implementing the court’s directions. These included the interior secretary and the principal secretary to the prime minister, rather than senior political figures.

The argument was that naming both the prime minister and interior minister could make the proceedings appear politically motivated and potentially divert attention from the party’s stated objective of securing implementation of the court order.

However, when the petition was subsequently prepared, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif was named as a respondent, while Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi was left out. Sources said members of the parliamentary party were not aware of the reason behind the decision.

The omission of the interior minister has since become a subject of discussion in political circles and the media.

PTI’s legal team has offered a different explanation. Barrister Salman Akram Raja said there must be evidence connecting an individual to the decision not to comply with the Supreme Court’s order before that person can be made a respondent in contempt proceedings.

He said this was the reason Naqvi was not named, while the interior secretary was included in the petition.

The petition was filed by Imran Khan’s sister, Uzma Khan, through her lawyer Uzair Karamat Bhandari. It names the prime minister, the federal ministers for law and information, the Islamabad chief commissioner, the interior secretary, the Punjab inspector general of prisons and the superintendent of Adiala Jail as respondents.

The petition seeks contempt proceedings against the relevant officials and urgent measures to implement the Supreme Court’s directive regarding Imran Khan’s transfer to Shifa International Hospital.

Meanwhile, the government has challenged the Supreme Court’s original order, arguing that PTI supporters had created a security situation that prevented Khan from being shifted to Shifa International Hospital.

Instead, the former prime minister was taken to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) for a medical examination before being returned to Adiala Jail.

The dispute has now expanded beyond the question of why the interior minister was not named in the petition. It has raised a broader issue over the purpose and legal strategy of the contempt proceedings.

The key question is whether PTI intends to use the proceedings primarily as a mechanism to enforce the Supreme Court’s order or to pursue action against individuals it believes were responsible for its alleged non-compliance.