IHC seeks arguments on Imran's X ban plea

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday sought arguments on the merits of a petition seeking a ban on the X (formerly Twitter) account of PTI founder Imran Khan at the next hearing. Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, who heard the case, also sought a response from PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan on the party's position regarding Imran's X account. During the hearing, the court also took up a contempt petition concerning the denial of a meeting between Imran and his lawyer, Salman Akram Raja, despite a previous court order. The superintendent of Adiala Jail submitted his response, stating that political discussions took place during meetings with Imran and, therefore, Raja could not be allowed to meet him. Justice Arbab observed that Raja would not engage in political discussions during the meeting and asked whether he could be allowed access to Imran if he gave an undertaking not to discuss politics. The state counsel said he would seek instructions from the advocate general and respond at the next hearing. The judge directed the state counsel to clarify at the next hearing whether Raja would be permitted to meet Imran if he assured the authorities that no political discussion would take place. Raja argued that he could not present arguments on the merits of the case without obtaining instructions from Imran. He said the court had also previously issued an order allowing him to meet the PTI founder, but the order had not been implemented. When the court asked why the PTI had not submitted its response and who was representing the party, a counsel for Barrister Gohar appeared and said the PTI chairman was not in the city but would appear at the next hearing. Justice Arbab remarked that there was no need for Gohar to appear personally and asked the counsel to convey the party's position on the matter. Raja maintained that the PTI had nothing to do with the case, saying Imran was the main party to the proceedings but had not been allowed to give instructions to his lawyer. He argued that the PTI founder, being the principal party to the case, should be allowed to provide instructions to his counsel. Justice Arbab questioned Raja whether he was representing Imran. Raja replied that he was unable to do so because he was not being allowed to obtain instructions from his client. The judge then asked why the court was hearing Raja if he was not representing Imran on his instructions. The court also questioned Adiala Jail authorities as to why Raja was not being allowed to have the power of attorney signed by Imran. Raja clarified that the issue was not limited to the power of attorney, saying he wanted to obtain instructions from Imran. He argued that if the authorities had reservations about the court's order allowing the meeting, they should have challenged it through an appeal rather than ignoring it. Justice Arbab observed that the court had issued the relevant order in Nov 2025 and said the court was still hearing Raja despite him being unable to obtain instructions from Imran. The judge remarked that the state's "generosity" could be seen in the fact that it had not even objected to the court hearing Raja without instructions from Imran. The court adjourned the hearing.