Strike call against Supreme Court verdict: contempt notices issued to Haider, Sharjeel

The Supreme Court on Saturday issued contempt of court notices to PPP leaders Taj Haider and Sharjeel Memon for giving a protest call against the apex court verdict that declared appointment of NAB chairman Syed Deedar Hussain Shah as null and void. The court directed them to appear before the court on April 1.
The court also issued notices to Attorney General of Pakistan, Advocate General Sindh, President Supreme Court Bar Association, Vice Chairman Pakistan Bar Council and Vice Chairman Sindh Bar Council to assist the court. The Advocate General Sindh has also been told to explain as to what action has so far been taken to pay compensation to the heirs of persons killed during the protest or those whose properties were damaged.
He had also been asked to submit copies of the FIRs along with complete record of criminal cases registered in this regard. The court also issued notice to Sharjeel Inam Memon, a PPP MPA from Sindh to explain why under Article 63 (1)(g) read with Article 113 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan he may not be declared disqualified to be a member of parliament or provincial assembly.
The court had sought a comprehensive report from chief secretary Sindh, which was submitted by acting home secretary and other authorities including Intelligence Bureau (IB), etc. Pemra has also furnished DVDs, CDs, etc, and some of the extracts have been reproduced wherein the judgement of the apex court has been disrespected, degraded and ridiculed.
The Intelligence Bureau (IB) has also submitted a report, confirming that on the announcement of the judgement strike was observed throughout Sindh except in Matiari, Umar Kot and Thar in response to the call given by PPP leaders. The court in its order said, "Having gone through the same prima facie statements of Taj Haider and Sharjeel Memon seem to be derogatory and it appears that the judgement has been ridiculed.
"The matter needs to be examined in the court to ascertain as to whether both the persons named above are liable to be proceeded against for the contempt of court under Article 204 of the constitution read with section 3 of the contempt of Court Ordinance (Ordinance IV) of 2003," it added.