Islamabad district and sessions court faced tumultuous scenes as it refrained from announcing the reserved verdict in the iddat case involving former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his spouse, Bushra Bibi. The case, which marks the third and final verdict announced just days before the general elections, has been marred by controversy and legal wrangling.
The uncertainty surrounding the verdict arose when District and Sessions Judge Shahrukh Arjumand, who was expected to deliver the judgment, requested the transfer of the case, leaving the pronouncement of the verdict in limbo.
The complainant, Khawar Fareed Maneka, Bushra Bibi’s former husband, had previously urged Arjumand to recuse himself from the case, citing bias and partiality towards the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). The situation took a distressing turn when a video aired on television portrayed an assault on Maneka outside the court premises, further escalating the tensions surrounding the case.
The appeals filed by Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi relate to their conviction in the iddat case, which pertains to their marriage during the latter’s iddat period. The legal saga began with an Islamabad court sentencing the couple to seven years in jail just days before the general elections. This verdict came in the wake of earlier convictions in the Toshakhana case, where the couple received 14-year sentences, and the cypher case, where Imran Khan and his Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi were handed 10-year sentences.
The contentious nature of the iddat case verdict drew widespread criticism from civil society, women activists, and legal experts, who condemned it as a violation of women’s rights to dignity and privacy. Protests erupted in Islamabad and Karachi, denouncing the state’s interference in private matters.
In response to the unfolding events, Imran Khan expressed his intention to file misconduct references against Senior Civil Judge Qudratullah and District and Sessions Judge Abul Hasnat Mohammad Zulqarnain. Meanwhile, Judge Arjumand, in a letter to the Islamabad High Court registrar, highlighted the pending adjudication of the appeals and the complainant’s expression of mistrust, leading to his request for the transfer of the appeals to another court of competent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Outside the courtroom, PTI leaders condemned the judge’s decision, asserting that it undermined justice and fundamental rights. The courtroom drama unfolded with emotional outbursts and heated exchanges between the complainant, Maneka, and the PTI lawyers, further complicating the already contentious legal proceedings.
The case, which has been marred by accusations, emotional appeals, and legal complexities, remains unresolved, reflecting the complexity and sensitivity of legal matters entangled in political and personal controversies.
