IHC Rejects Islamabad DC’s Plea, Orders Response Submission in Contempt Case

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) dismissed Islamabad Deputy Commissioner (DC) Irfan Nawaz Memon’s request for unconditional pardon on Wednesday, following his failure to attend a contempt of court hearing. Presided over by Justice Babar Sattar, the hearing mandated Memon to submit his response to a show-cause notice by Monday, prohibiting his international travel. Additionally, the court rejected his appeal to transfer the case to another bench.

Earlier, the IHC ordered Memon’s immediate arrest and inclusion on the no-fly list for evading a contempt case linked to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Shehryar Afridi’s detention under the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) ordinance. The ordinance, granting extensive detention powers, was utilized post-May 9 riots to apprehend PTI leaders.

The case against Memon and Islamabad SSP Operations Malik Jamil Zafar alleges overreach in issuing MPO orders under Section 3. While SSP Operations Zafar and SP Farooq Buttar attended the hearing, Memon’s counsel sought his exemption. Despite attending, Memon faced the court’s ire for prior absences and issuance of 69 MPO orders spanning 970 days.

Memon defended himself, emphasizing compliance with court orders and asserting no intent to defy the law. He petitioned for dismissal of the contempt charges, citing procedural discrepancies and attributing the MPO orders to Rawalpindi’s DC.

The court deliberated on the legal aspects and the circumstances necessitating MPO issuance, considering intelligence reports and Afridi’s inflammatory rhetoric. SSP Operations Zafar’s submission of an unconditional apology marked the hearing’s conclusion.

The proceedings underscore the judiciary’s commitment to upholding legal integrity and adherence to court directives. Amidst complex legal arguments and operational insights, the case highlights the judiciary’s pivotal role in ensuring accountability and transparency within administrative frameworks. As the case evolves, it reflects broader themes of legal scrutiny and institutional oversight in governance dynamics, resonating with the principles of justice and constitutional authority.