Imran Khan orders to expel absentee lawmakers from polling day for 26th constitutional amendment. PHOTO: PIXABAY
LAHORE:
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has referred a petition by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founding chairman Imran Khan seeking only one case arising out of the May 9 incidents to a two-judge bench for further hearing.
The court scheduled the next hearing before a two-member bench headed by Justice Shehbaz Rizvi on December 4.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Aaliya Neelum expressed strong displeasure over the presence of an unusually large number of lawyers on the dais.
The court ordered all lawyers except Latif Khosa to leave the dais, but some lawyers, notably Intizar Panjotha, later came forward despite the order.
Petitioners urged that multiple FIRs of the same nature should not lead to multiple identical trials and requested that the court order that only one trial should be conducted in connection with the May 9 events.
The hearing was marked by visible irritation from the bench after several lawyers filled the lectern.
CJ Aaliya Neelum while addressing the courtroom noted that the petition had attracted so many lawyers that it had actually overloaded the bench: This petition is so weighty that so many lawyers have come to the bench, she observed.
After ordering all lawyers except senior advocate Latif Khosa to step down from the lectern, the court’s directions were not fully followed.
When lawyer Intizar Panjotha returned to the dais, CJ confronted Latif Khosa and asked why other lawyers had come forward to stand beside him. “It seems you don’t want to follow the court’s directions,” she said, pressing Khosa for an explanation.
The petition filed on behalf of the PTI founder contends that multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) bearing the same or similar allegations stemming from the May 9 incidents should not result in separate, parallel criminal proceedings. The lawyer urged the LHC to direct the consolidation or to allow only a single trial on the common or main charges.
After hearing the opening arguments and noting the sensitivities involved, the court transferred the case to two judges.
