Isn’t it self-contradictory?

I am referring to the news flashed today Thu 6^th Sep 2012 in Pakistan Observer under the caption, ‘Contempt hearing SC issues summons for Malik’.

The news says that a two members’ bench namely Justice Nasirul Mulk and Justice Ejaz Chaudhry is hearing contempt of court against Interior Minister Rehman Malik and yesterday Chaudhry Azhar who is the lawyer for the minister requested the bench to give more time to him facilitating him to prepare his defense but the court rejected it forthwith. So far so good and in the said news there is absolutely nothing abnormal or unusual whatsoever simply because not only in Pakistan but all over the world lawyers do ask for extension for one reason or the other which is both granted and rejected so where did someone err which ignited me to pen? However, just pause for a minute and let me establish how the news is self-contradictory.

Justice Ejaz in reply to lawyer’s request that more time be given said that the minister has already been given quite sufficient time to file his defense reply but he did not care and just putting forward lame excuses so he cannot be given any more time. Very good and I really appreciate what the honorable judge has said because time and again it has been seen that not only this minister but even PM has dragged on for indefinite period which is very much lamentable to be honest. It unnecessarily wastes lot of time of the court as well which is very much immoral in any case if not criminal.

However when the bench has postponed its hearing on the contempt of court to an unspecified date what does that mean other than giving not only an extension rather indefinite extension. SC enjoys inborn prerogatives which if applied can create havoc but I believe SC does not resort to exercise all the powers vested in it and instead tries to be somewhere in the middle which is commendable indeed. However, had the court asked the minister to appear after few hours it would have meant that the bench did not give any extension but for the sake of argument had it asked the minister to appear even tomorrow then too it could be construed that no extension was given but none of the two situations can be found over here. How did I err to say that court hearing adjournment to an unspecified date means nothing other than that very long extension is given in fact despite the remark that no more extension is to be given? Isn’t it self-contradictory?