IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, HCJ. 
Mr. Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja 
Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed 
 
 
Criminal Original Petition No.92 of 2013  
(Contempt proceeding against Imran Khan, Chairman PTI) 
 
 
On Court’s Notice: 
 
Mr. Muneer A. Malik,  
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General for Pakistan  
 
For alleged contemnor:  
Mr. Hamid Khan, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR with 
 
 
 
 
 
Imran Khan 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date of hearing:  
 
02.08.2013 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.— Mr. Hamid Khan, Sr. 
ASC has placed on record two documents in the form of explanations, 
and he reserved his right to file detailed reply of the notice if need be. 
Contents of the said explanations are reproduced hereinbelow for 
reference:- 
“EXPLANATION No. 1: 
 
 
1. 
THAT Imran Khan has neither committed contempt 
of court under the law or the Constitution nor would even 
think of doing so. 
2. 
That Imran Khan has not started any campaign 
either to scandalize the Court or to bring judges into 
hatred, ridicule or contempt. On the contrary, he has 
always struggled to uphold dignity and independence of 
the Supreme Court and the judiciary in general. 
3. 
That Imran Khan believes in the rule of law, 
supremacy of the Constitution and independence of 
judiciary and, for this reason, he and his party was in the 
forefront of the movement for rule of law and restoration 
of judiciary.  
4. 
That, after the general elections, Imran Khan has 
repeatedly requested and appealed to the Supreme Court 
Crl. O.P. No.92/2013 
2
to redress the grievance of his party which has suffered 
massive electoral rigging at the hands of ECP and its 
officials. This clearly establishes that Imran Khan and his 
party have high expectations from the Supreme Court that 
justice would be done to them and that their grievance 
would be redressed.  
5. 
It is respectfully submitted that the notice may 
kindly be recalled.”  
 
 
“EXPLANATION No. 2:  
Respectfully Submitted 
1. 
That the press statement was made in good faith 
on 26th July, 2013 where in reference to the 
‘Judiciary’ was for the Returning Officers and/or 
District Returning Officers (belonging to the 
Subordinate Judiciary), assigned to the election 
process. 
2. 
That Mr. Imran Khan has high respect and esteem 
for the Supreme Court of Pakistan and has high 
expectations from this Honourable Court for 
redressal of the grievances of the PTI arising out 
of the general elections.” 
 
 
2. 
  
We have drawn his attention towards one of the press 
clippings (Press Conference of Imran Khan dated 26.07.2013) which is 
reproduced hereinbelow:- 
 
 
 
Crl. O.P. No.92/2013 
3
3. 
  
Selection of the words used against judiciary, Mr. 
Hamid Khan argued, is in a different context, for which 
explanation has been given and he has pointed out the same 
verbally.   
4. 
  
it was pointed out to him that the Judiciary (ہﯿﻟﺪﻋ ) is 
required to be respected and if there is any grievance, the 
remedy is available under the law, but using the words “کﺎﻨﻣﺮﺷ “, 
prima facie, tantamounts to abusing the Judiciary. The Courts try 
their best to avoid asserting itself in such like situation but are 
compelled to look into a matter where not only the dignity or 
respect of a Judge but of the entire Institution is involved, and 
the Courts are constrained to call for an explanation. The 
explanations noted above have been examined carefully and are 
hereby rejected not being satisfactory. 
5. 
 
Learned counsel has pointed out his grievance in 
respect of an application which was filed in C.R.P. No.191/2012 
in Constitution Petition No.87/2011 (Workers Party Pakistan v. 
Federation of Pakistan etc.) as far back as 08.06.2013. He 
further stated that the grievance of the Chairman PTI was that 
his application is not being disposed of. We have pointed out to 
him that perhaps the correct facts have not been brought into his 
notice as this application was returned by the office on the same 
day by passing the following order:- 
 
“That the above titled C.M.A. filed by you is not 
entertainable on the ground that instead of making this 
Crl. O.P. No.92/2013 
4
application in a pending Review Petition the applicant 
should approach the appropriate forum and avail the 
proper remedy available under the law, if so advised. 
Hence this C.M.A. in C.R.P. 191/2012 in Constitution 
Petition No.87/2011 is returned herewith in original being 
not entertainable along with its paper books.” 
 
6. 
 
Against the order of the Institution Officer who 
exercises delegated powers of the Registrar of this Court, a Civil 
Miscellaneous Appeal No.82/2013 was filed under Order V rule 3 
of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and thereafter no request has 
been made for fixation of the case either by the Senior ASC or 
his AOR. The cases are fixed in the Supreme Court under policy 
guidelines and wherever there is any sort of urgency, a request is 
to be made for out of turn fixation of the case, otherwise out of 
total pendency, which is about 19,000 cases; it is not possible to 
fix all the cases and dispose them of on the same day. However, 
by following procedure under Supreme Court Rules, 1980 on an 
urgent application such appeals could possibly be heard.  
7. 
 
In addition to the above, learned counsel has been 
appraised about 31 Election Petitions under section 52 of the 
Representation of People Act, 1976 filed by the candidates of 
Pakistan 
Tehreek-e-Insaf 
(PTI) 
before 
Election 
Tribunals 
requesting for, inter alia, examining the thumb impressions of 
the voters through the process of biometric system, particularly, 
in respect of the following four constituencies:- 
 
 
Crl. O.P. No.92/2013 
5
S# 
Constituency No. 
Election Petition 
No. 
Title of the case 
1. 
NA 122 Lahore-V 
No.11(315)/2013 (Imran 
Khan 
Niazi 
vs. 
Sardar 
Ayaz 
Sadiq and others) 
2 
NA-125 Lahore VIII No.11(194)/2013 (Hamid 
Khan 
vs. 
Khawaja Saad Rafiqu 
and others) 
3. 
NA-110 Sialkot-I 
No.11(344)/2013 (Usman 
Dar 
vs. 
Khawaja Muhammad 
Asif and others) 
4. 
NA 154 Lodhran-I 
No.11(355)/2013  (Jehangir 
Khan 
Tareen 
vs. 
Muhammad Siddique 
Khan 
Baloch 
and 
others) 
 
7. 
 
Learned counsel requests for time to file reply of 
notice. Adjourned to 28.08.2013. 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad, the 
2nd August, 2013 
Nisar/* 
 
