Imran Khan, Chairman of the PTI, submitted a supplementary answer on Wednesday in response to the show-case notice that was issued to him by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) for threatening a judge. In the supplementary answer, Khan expressed “deep regrets” over his “unintentional utterances” during a rally that took place in Islamabad on August 20.The former prime minister expressed his gratitude to the court for the opportunity to provide a response that was “fully considered” as well as for the remarks that were made during the last hearing session

A strong reaction was provoked by the PTI chairman’s contentious statements concerning district and periods choose Zeba Chaudhry, who had allowed his chief of staff, Shahbaz Gill’s bodily remand in a sedition case. As a result, a terror complaint was launched against the PTI chairman.

The problem was also brought to the attention of the IHC, which issued a summons to the chairman of the PTI, requiring him to appear before the court on August 31.

The case was heard by a five-person bench, which included the Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), Athar Minallah, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, and Justice Babar Sattar.

Athar Minallah, the Chief Justice of the ICH, voiced his disappointment with Imran Khan’s first answer and indicated that he had anticipated that Imran would acknowledge to making a mistake in his Answer. Imran Khan’s statement has been criticised by Athar Minallah.

“I was expecting that you would go to the courts and say that you trust them,” stating that Imran’s lengthy answer left him unsatisfied. “I was expecting that you would go to the courts and say that you trust them.”

It was handed to him as a task to respond to the discovery in a “well-considered” manner within seven days.

In his response just now, the chairman of the PTI stated that the observations that were made have provided an excellent opportunity to reflect on the necessary aspects of the matter, which have an excellent bearing upon the rule of law and the truthful dispensation of justice in Pakistan. He stated this in his answer.

He gave the IHC his word that he has the utmost esteem and respect for this court, as well as its subordinate courts and judges, who are dispensing justice to the average person under very trying circumstances.

“The Respondent would like to take this opportunity to express his deep regrets over his unintentional utterances that he made during the course of his speech at a rally that was held in response to the shocking news of the physical torture of Shahbaz Gill,” the statement reads. “The Respondent was not aware that he was saying these things.”

He said that these statements were “unintentional” and that they were never intended to be directed on the lady who was chosen, for whom he had “a lot of respect.”

Imran Khan has indicated that he did not intend to hurt her feelings in any way, and that he genuinely regrets doing so if her feelings were hurt as a result of what he said or did.

“The Defendant did not intend to threaten the woman judge, nor could he even conceive of doing so,” the judge said. “The Respondent has respect for the judiciary, particularly the Subordinate judiciary, and he thinks that judges of the Subordinate/District court should be strong and independent in order to administer justice to the common man,” the statement said moreover.

He also informed the IHC that he wouldn’t be bashful about expressing his apologies to her and that he wouldn’t hold back.

“It was never the intention of those comments to interfere with or to affect in any manner the course of the administration of justice in any way.” The Respondent is of the opinion that the Constitution and the rule of law are being adhered to by all of the Courts across Pakistan.

In addition, the chairman of the PTI pointed the finger at the governing coalition for politicising the situation.

“However, unfortunately, in order to gain political advantage, it has been viciously criticised out of all proportions by those who see an opportunity for political point scoring and to oust the Respondent from the political arena,” “However, unfortunately, in order to gain political advantage, it has been bitterly criticised out of all proportions by those who see an opportunity for political point scoring and to ” Regarding the same matter, in order to engage in political persecution of the Respondent, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the Respondent in accordance with the requirements of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997.

He claimed that he was unaware of the fact that any appeal or other legal processes in regard to the same subject matter were now being heard by this courtroom. He was referring to the phrase “sub judice,” which means “pending” in legal parlance.

That the aim of the legislation regarding contempt is not to punish someone so much as it is to preserve the dignity of the legal system. The Respondent has a firm belief in the supremacy of the Constitution as well as the rule of law. It is said that the Islamic ideals of mercy and moderation have always been acknowledged and respected by the courts. The Respondent humbly requests that the aforementioned Islamic principles of ufve and forgiveness be observed in this particular instance as well.

He filed an appeal with the court asking it to dismiss the contempt notice that had been issued to him.