A hearing was held in the case concerning a fake video allegedly involving Punjab Information Minister Azma Bukhari.
Judicial Magistrate Naeem Wattoo presided over the proceedings, during which Azma Bukhari appeared before the court and addressed the judge from the rostrum.
“I want to say two or three things, if you allow me,” Bukhari told the court.
Clarifying her position in the case, she said, “I am not the accused in this case; I am the complainant.”
Bukhari said she had been wronged and that the circulation of the fake video had caused her severe distress.
“An injustice has been done to me. You know what I have been going through,” she said.
She told the court that a YouTuber had posted on social media that arrest warrants had been issued for her. She demanded that the court establish when the warrants were allegedly issued.
“This YouTuber is standing in the courtroom. Ask him when the warrants were issued,” she said.
The YouTuber subsequently apologised to Uzma Bukhari in the courtroom.
Bukhari stressed that the matter concerned the honour and dignity of a woman, saying the case was not an ordinary civil matter.
“My fake video was created and circulated. You cannot imagine the pain I have gone through,” she said.
The provincial minister also said she had requested that her statement be recorded through video link due to security concerns.
“With regret, I have to say that if cases are going to proceed like this, then the courts should be closed,” Bukhari remarked.
She added that if a provincial minister could face such circumstances, ordinary citizens could be subjected to even greater difficulties.
Justice Naeem Wattoo said the court considered respect for women extremely important.
“Women’s respect is very important to us. Our judgments show how we deal with cases of this nature,” the judge said.
Bukhari said many people wanted to accompany her to court, but she had asked them not to come.
“I have come here because I want justice,” she said.
Responding to concerns over the delay in the case, Magistrate Wattoo said the delay was not due to the courts.
“We had issued an order. You challenged it, and that is why the case was delayed,” the judge said.
He added that the court had faced criticism but had tolerated it.