The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has reserved its decision on the admissibility of a contempt petition against lawyer and activist Imaan Mazari. The petition was filed over her remarks regarding subordinate court judges.
The case was heard on Thursday, where IHC’s Justice Kayani raised questions over whether the remarks truly amounted to contempt of court. He emphasized that no judge had personally complained about the statement.
Petition Against Imaan Mazari
The petition was filed by Hafiz Ehtesham. He argued that Imaan Mazari’s speech outside the press club gave the impression that subordinate judges were divided and working under pressure. He maintained that these remarks fell under contempt of court.
During the hearing, Ehtesham read out parts of Mazari’s statement. He said she had accused Rawalpindi trial court judges of being weak and under influence. He further alleged that her words suggested division among judges.
Judge Presses Petitioner For Clarity
At this point, IHC’s Justice Kayani asked the petitioner to specify which judges Mazari was referring to. “Which judges are you talking about?” he questioned.
The petitioner then claimed that even Justice Kayani himself was among the judges mentioned. This remark angered the judge. He warned the petitioner to remain within the limits of the case.
“Stop here, don’t say a single word further,” Justice Kayani said firmly. “There is no division in this court and we will not even allow it.”
Remarks Reflect Personal Opinion, Not Contempt
Justice Kayani observed that Mazari’s statement could be considered a personal opinion but did not establish a claim of division in the judiciary. He repeatedly questioned whether the petition could qualify as contempt of court.
“How does what you are saying amount to contempt?” he asked the petitioner. He added that freedom of expression also applies to citizens, journalists, and vloggers.
IHC’s Justice Kayani noted that judges, like others, are open to criticism. He remarked: “She is pointing out weak judges — what is wrong with that? There are good judges and there are incompetent judges.”
No Complaint From Judges Themselves
The bench also highlighted that no judge had lodged a complaint about Mazari’s statement. Justice Kayani questioned the petitioner: “Did the trial court judge complain about it anywhere?”
He stressed that if judges feel their self-respect has been harmed, they should approach the court themselves. “If someone other than the judges tells us, the impression will be different,” he added.
Justice Kayani further observed that judges often deliver speeches at bar councils where they too express criticism and opinions. He pointed out that judicial officers are not immune from being questioned on their performance.
Court Reserves Decision
After listening to the arguments, the court decided to first determine whether the petition was even admissible. Justice Kayani stated that the bench would issue an order on the matter after consideration.
“We will see if the petition qualifies before proceeding further,” he announced, reserving the decision.
The ruling will decide whether the contempt case against Imaan Mazari can move forward or be dismissed at the initial stage.
