2012 P Cr (PLP)

MUZAFFAR ALI, J.

The instant contempt proceedings are outcome of "the news" published in the daily newspaper "Ausaf" on 19-8-2011, which is reproduced as under:-- The plain perusal of the news transpires that, the same has been reported by the Special Reporter of the said news paper and the allegations in it have been levelled in reference to the Writ Petition No.76 of 2011 titled "Javed Ahmed Advocate and others v. Selection Committee of Two Civil Judges" submitted before this Court on 18-8-2011. It is pertinent to note here that all the persons except petitioner No.1, arrayed in the writ petition as petitioners appeared before the Court and denied their knowledge of being part to the petition as petitioners and requested in writing to this Court to delete their names from the list of the petitioners and the request is granted". Since the contemptuous news has been published in reference to the writ petition as such the gist of the grounds of the same is reproduced as under:-- (1) Claimed age relaxation up to the age of 40 years some of petitioners challenged their disqualification to appear for the written test for exceeding age limit but some other candidates were allowed to appear for the test despite expiry of the age by the Assistant Registrar of the Court. (2) The petitioners claimed the test and interview to be against Recruitment Rules as in their opinion, there was no any provision in the Rules to appoint the Civil Judges on contract basis. (3) The method which was being conducted in selection of vacant post is not confidence-inspiring etc. This Court perused "the news" and found it baseless, unfounded, frivolous, and defamatory and an active mala fide attempt to erode confidence of the public on the higher Judiciary in Gilgit-Baltistan by publishing the scandalous news, hence the Hon'ble Chief Judge, keeping in view the importance and consequences of the matter, constituted full Court bench headed by his lordship. Initially respondents Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 were issued notice to meet the contempt proceedings. The respondents 3 and 4 attended the Court and they were charged for contempt of Court. While being charged, the respondents disclosed connection of the respondents No. 5 (the composer of "the newspaper Ausuf')

6. Hajat H.C. G.B Police Special Branch Gilgit, (7) Wali Khan Advocate in the matter as such the Court arrayed the persons also in the list of the respondents and noticed to attend the Court to meet the contempt proceedings against them and were charged The respondents were given ample chance to prove the scandalous allegations published. They were also confronted with the writ petition referred in "the news". The respondents unanimously conceded that, published Report is unfounded, baseless, false, scandalous, for the reason, the allegations have not been taken as grounds of the writ petition by the petitioners. The respondents also conceded that, they have not gone through the contents of the petition before levelling the allegations on the Court. The respondents were given chance to be represented by engaging Counsel and they defended the charge with the legal assistance of their respective Counsel with the pleas as under:-- Respondent No.1:

The Chief Editor Daily 'Ausuf' though failed to attend the Court on appointed date, but tendered unconditional written apology through his Counsel Mr. Manzoor Hussain, Advocate without contest. We considered the same insufficient unless he attended the Court and got recorded his statement. In his statement the respondent No.1 again bowed his head before the Court by throwing himself at the mercy of the Court. He also conceded "the news" to be defamatory false and termed unintentional human error in his part. He informed the Court that, he has taken penal action against the Special Reporter (The respondent No. 4) by dismissing him from the job and has published apology note in his newspaper. The Respondent No.2:

(Group Editor Daily Ausuf) failed to attend the Court because of his illness as his counsel has submitted medical reports whereby he has been advised bed rest for 8 weeks but he also tendered unconditional written apology from the Court through his Counsel. The Court did not consider written apology sufficient and contempt proceedings against him are kept pending till his recovery from illness and attend the Court in person. The Respondent No.3:

(The Resident Editor) conceded "the news" in question to be contemptuous and false and also admitted his responsibility as being Resident Editor of "the news" paper to scrutinize the report, but he took plea of his absence when report was submitted for publication by the Special Reporter. He also stated that the Special Reporter pressurized the composer to compose "the news" and to send for publishing. The respondent No.3 did not tender any unconditional apology from the Court at any stage of the proceedings but contested on the plea of absentia. The Respondent No.4:

(The Special Reporter) denied his guilt and termed it as fair comments. He disclosed that he got the information from H.C. Hajat (the respondent No. 6) and denied any contempt of the Court in his part throughout the proceedings but on 17-9-2011, when the case was fixed for orders and was yet to call, he sent an application by hand of a peon in Chamber, whereby he requested pardon of Court with a plea altogether contrary to 1st one, charging the Higher ranks of "the news" agency for publication of "the news" The Respondent No.5:

(The composer) stated that, the respondent No.4 came late and handed over the report to him and since the respondent No.3 was not present in the office as such he himself forwarded the report for publication without getting the same scrutinized by the respondent No.3. He while being cross-examined by the Counsel for the respondent No.4 admitted that he had no authority to send the report for publication without verification of the report by the Resident Editor, but he did so acceding the request of the Special Reporter. He denied any pressure extended to him by the Special Reporter and contested the case without tendering any apology. Respondent No.6:

The respondent No.4 named the respondent No.6 to be source of the false information on basis of the same he reported and "the news" was published. The respondent No.6 (H.C. G.B Police Special Branch Gilgit) denied to give any information to the respondent No.4, but he conceded to send a report to his department on the subject wherein he while reporting about the writ petition has stated that . He in the statement before the Court named Advocate Wali Khan (the respondent No.7) to give him this information. Respondent No.7:

A practising Advocate, was named by the respondents Nos.4 and 6 for floating the false information. He attended the Court on notice and submitted an affidavit whereby he denied floating of such information lastly the members and office-bearers of "the High Court Bar Association" and the "members of Young Lawyers Forum", along with the respondent No. 7 appeared before the Court and tendered apology on his behalf and he himself too. It is also pertinent to mention here that, just after publication of the contemptuous news, the members of the Bar showed their anger and perturbness. The Young Lawyer's Forum and the Chief Court Bar Association passed resolution of condemnation against the malicious news and termed the same as a mala fide attempt to disgrace the Court. The Young Lawyers Forum also nominated Mr. Mehmood-ul-Hassan Advocate to assist the Court in contempt proceedings. Mr. Kifayat-Ullah Advocate also appeared before the Court at his own accord and assisted the Court, we appreciate their legal assistance. We heard the learned A.A.-G assisted by Advocates Mehmood-ul- Hassan and Mr. Kifayat-ul-llah and Counsel for the respondents. The fact of the contempt has proved and established against all respondents without any shadow of doubt and all the respondents have conceded that "the news" is without foundation, malicious, derogatory and is a mala fide attempt to shake not only the very foundation of Higher Judiciary in Gilgit-Baltistan but to malign the honourable members of the bar also. Indeed the confidence of the Public is real asset of the Courts of law, without which no Court can discharge its pious responsibility. This important aspect has been termed and elaborated by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled the "State v. Khalid Masood and others" PLD 1996 SC Page

42. A portion of added note of the honourable Judge Ajmal Mian is reproduced as under:-- "In my view, the Independence of Judiciary cannot be ensured if people are allowed to utter or print scandalous matters which may scandalise the Court or tends to bring the Court or a Judge of the Court into hatred, ridicule or contempt. This will not only undermine the authority of the Court but will also impair/shake the confidence of the people in it, without which no Court can function and discharge its Constitutional mandate". We after probing into the case, have reached to the conclusion that the false news was floated and published with a deliberate ulterior motive to cause erosion of the public confidence on the Higher Judiciary established in near past and the same is with intention to bring this Court into hatred. This will not only undermines the Court but will also shake the confidence of the public and impair the fledgling Judicial System in Gilgit-Baltistan, if the attempt is left unchecked or ignored. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have pleaded that the contemptuous news published without being scrutinized by them and as such they were unaware of the seriousness of "the news". The Resident Editor pleaded his absentia and the same was sent for publication without his notice. He was charged for the contempt of this Court and was punished for in the year 1999, hence he was supposed to be more vigilant in like cases but failed. The composer has also stated that it is not his job to scrutinize a report, but admitted that it was also not his job to send the report for publication without bringing the matter into notice of the Resident Editor, hence the respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 have failed to attend their responsibilities as such are liable for contempt of the Court. In this regard we are reproducing the relevant holding of the High Court Dacca reported in PLD 1964 Dacca Page 254 and also relevant Para of the August Supreme Court in the case reported in the PLD 1996 Page 46.

32. Now to come to the case of the Editor, Manager, Printer and Publisher of the "Morning News", they have, of course, in their affidavits tendered an unconditional apology to this Court for the publications that were made. Tasiqul Alam Khan, has of course, stated that he himself wrote out the report containing the offending passage, but we cannot altogether ignore the careless and negligent manner in which they have acted in this matter. Tasiqul Alam in his evidence stated that he did not even bother to read the contradiction issued by the Moulana although he took particular care to read the condemnations of the statement issued by Mr. Hashemuddin and Mr. Azizul Huq, and realized that he should preserve his scrap of paper on which he had recorded the minutes of the interview. Yet, he maintains that he was not curious to know whether the Moulana had or had not issued any contradiction. He has of course, explained that during this time from the 6th to the 9th of May, 1958, he was actually busy with his own affairs, for, he was about to leave for Rawalpindi to take up his new appointment with the Radio Pakistan. He did not however, leave East Pakistan until the 29th of May, 1958 again, both the Editor, Manager, Printer and Publisher of the newspaper have stated in their affidavits that they accepted without scrutiny whatever their correspondent had written out and published the same with the fullest confidence that the said correspondent would not make an incorrect report. This, however, cannot be accepted without qualifications, for, it is conceded by Tasiqul Alam that the headlines and the bold letterings. So, someone responsible for editing news items in this newspaper must have put the headlines and the bold letterings. The offending passage is in bold letters. So, they could not possibly have escaped the attention of the News Editor or whoever it was who edited this particular item. Any person who can be considered to be fit to be placed in charge of editing items of news of the newspaper's Editorial Board, could not thus have failed to notice the gravity of the charge made in that passage. It is idle, therefore, to contend now that the said passage was published without any scrutiny whatsoever, and we are not prepared to accept the same. Not that it would have been any different event if there had been any scrutiny, for, it is now too well-settled to be doubted that the Editor, Manager, Printer and Publisher of the newspaper must accept the fullest responsibility for everything that is published. It is no excuse or justification to say that it is a quotation from somebody else. Even the repetition of contempt is a contempt. In the facts that have now transpired; since we have held that these words were not uttered by Moulana Tarkabagish: those concerned with the preparation with of the report and printing and publishing the same must, therefore, be held responsible for the said words. (i) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ....Art. 204....Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVII, R.I... Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), S.7....Contempt of Court......publishing the contemptuous material in a newspaper ....Editor, Printer and Publisher was liable even through he was absent when the matter was printed and Published. Respondent No. 4 is the main character of this ugly drama, who poses himself to be an experienced reporter and graduate, obliviously failed to prove the foundation of "the news". Respondent No.6, a Police personnel of Special Branch in Police, has reported the writ petition without going through the contents of the writ petition wherein he blamed no confidence of Advocates on the local Judges, hence both the respondents have committed contempt of Court. All the respondents have committed contempt of Court in terms of sections 3-4 read with provision 75 of the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order 2009 and are liable to be punished under section 5 of the Contempt of Court Act. Since the respondent No. 1 has tendered written apology and also has thrown him self at the mercy of the Court we deem the apology to be sincere as such he is not imposed any punishment and extended the pardon to him as this Court is not vindictive. The respondent No. 2 has also submitted unconditional written apology through his Counsel but the Court deems it not sufficient and his appearance before the Court is mandatory, hence the case to his extent is kept pending and he is directed through his Counsel to attend the Court on 17-11-2011. The respondent No. 7 is also pardoned, giving value and regard to the request made by the members of the bar and Young Lawyers Forum in open Court coupled with his own unconditional apology, however he is warned to understand dignity of Courts and bar and to follow professional ethics in future as being part of the legal hierarchy. The respondents Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 are convicted and sentenced 6 months simple imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.5,000 (Rupees Five thousand) on each of them, in default of payment of fine, they will further undergo one month simple imprisonment. M.H./147/GB Order accordingly.