Right of defence restored: IK gets SC relief in PM defamation case

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has restored the right of defence of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan in a long-running defamation case filed against him by Prime Minister Mian Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif.

The Prime Minister had filed a defamation suit seeking Rs10 billion in damages over certain public allegations. Imran Khan had accused PM Shehbaz of offering him money to withdraw the Panama Papers case. The case, which has remained pending before the trial court for the past eight years, will now proceed with the restoration of the PTI founder’s right of defence.

A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Ayesha A. Malik and comprising Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, on Thursday announced the judgment on the review petition filed by the PTI founder.

The bench, by a majority of 2/1, set aside the Supreme Court judgment dated December 29, 2022, along with the judgments of the High Court and the trial court. The matter is remanded to the trial court to grant an opportunity to the PTI founder to file his reply to the interrogatories in compliance with the order of October 20, 2022, and thereafter to proceed with the case in accordance with the law. Justice Hashim did not agree with the majority judgment.

The trial court, on November 24, 2022, struck out the PTI founder’s right of defence, a decision later upheld by the Lahore High Court (LHC). The PTI founder then approached the apex court against the order. A three-member SC bench, headed by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and comprising Amin-ud-Din Khan and Justice Ayesha, on December 29, 2022, by majority had dismissed Imran’s petition against the High Court. Justice Ayesha had dissented.

The interrogatories were filed by the petitioner (Imran Khan) and the respondent (Shahbaz Sharif) on February 2, 2022, and February 3, 2022, respectively. On February 11, 2022, the respondent sought time to amend his interrogatories, which was allowed on March 8, 2022, and the Petitioner was directed to file his reply. The petitioner sought three adjournments and filed objections to the interrogatories on May 9, 2022. However, the objections were dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to file his answers to the interrogatories. The next date of hearing was October 26, 2022, on which date the petitioner sought an adjournment, which was granted by the Court. The next date of hearing was November 8, 2022, on which date again an oral request for adjournment was made on the ground that the petitioner was injured and hospitalised.

The next date of hearing was fixed for November 17, 2022, when again a request for adjournment was made on the ground that the counsel for the Petitioner was not able to establish contact with the Petitioner due to his hospitalisation and security concerns.

The petitioner was allowed to submit his reply by November 24, 2022, with a warning that, in case of failure, the right of defence of the petitioner would be struck out. On November 24, 2022, once again, the counsel appeared to state that he could not file the reply for the same reasons. On this date, an application for adjournment was also filed, in which they stated that they were going to assail the dismissal of the objection petition by way of filing a civil revision before the High Court.

The trial court, however, did not grant time and instead held that no lawful justification existed for a further grant of adjournment, as a reasonable number of opportunities had been provided to the Petitioner to submit his answer to the interrogatories, which he had failed to do. Consequently, the defence of the Petitioner was struck out in terms of Order XI Rule 21 CPC.

The incident of November 3, 2022, was widely shown on national news channels and covered by the print media, and was not denied by the Respondent. The Court itself accepted the reason of hospitalisation and injury on November 8, 2022, as well as November 17, 2022, which is evident from its orders. Under the circumstances, there was sufficient cause for seeking the adjournment, and the Court acted in haste by issuing a warning on November 17, 2022, and thereafter incorrectly recorded it in its order of November 24, 2022.

Justice Ayesha wrote that there was sufficient ground to give the adjournment, and the default was not willful. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was willful default, and it also cannot be said that the conduct of the petitioner was willfully contumacious, obstinate, and disobedient, and it also cannot be said that during the period from November 8, 2022 to November 24, 2022, the adjournments were sought with the intent to delay the proceedings.

The right of defence cannot be struck out without considering all relevant factors, and the court must weigh the balance between a fair trial and the circumstances at hand.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026