2025 P Cr (PLP)
Ch. Tariq Farooq — Petitioner Versus Sheikh Masood Iqbal and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2025 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Ch. Tariq Farooq — Petitioner Versus Sheikh Masood Iqbal and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Contempt of Court Act (XXVII of 1993) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Contempt of Court Act (XXVII of 1993) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 P Cr (PLP) (Ch. Tariq Farooq — Petitioner Versus Sheikh Masood Iqbal and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss. 3 & 7---Contempt of Court proceedings---Scope---Contempt petition had been filed by the petitioner seeking initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents on account of the use of derogatory language in their written statements, particularly the phrase "abuse of process of Court" which was used in reference to the Supreme Court's final decision in a case---Held: Respondent No.1 (Advocate General) holding a constitutional office as such, was expected to exhibit the highest standard of professionalism and respect towards judicial institutions---Leaving aside the matter of contempt of this Court, the written statement filed by said respondent before the High Court contained language unbecoming of his office, including the use of the word "rascal" in reference to the petitioner---Such conduct was entirely unacceptable, particularly from an officer of his stature---Similarly, respondent No.2, being an officer of the Court, was duty-bound to uphold and enhance the dignity of the Court rather than engaging in conduct that undermined it---Language employed in his written statement was not only inappropriate but also amounted to a direct affront to the authority of this Court---Thus, the conduct of the respondents warranted the imposition of the maximum penalty under contempt of Court laws---However, while showing grace and in consideration of their unconditional apologies and expressions of remorse, Supreme Court observed that it would be appropriate to accept their apologies and drop the contempt proceedings with a warning to be careful in future.
- Raja Sajjad Ahmed Khan for Petitioner.
- 2. The background of the matter is that, through an order dated 20.09.2019, this Court converted the petition for leave to appeal into an appeal, accepted it, admitted the writ petitions for regular hearing, and remanded the case to the High Court for a decision strictly in accordance with the law. A subsequent review petition against this order was also dismissed. However, upon remand, the respondents, specifically respondent No.1 (Advocate General) and respondent No.2 (Mushtaq Ahmed Janjua), submitted written statements containing language that prima facie undermined the dignity of the Court. In particular, respondent No.2 stated in paragraph 5 of his written statement that:
- 4. Respondent No.1, the Advocate General, contended that the language used in his written statement was unintentional and a result of the heavy workload. He further asserted that paragraph 5 of his written statement differed from that of respondent No.2. He categorically denied any intention to undermine the dignity of this Court and tendered an unconditional apology.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 3 & 7
Scope
Contempt petition had been filed by the petitioner seeking initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents on account of the use of derogatory language in their written statements, particularly the phrase "abuse of process of Court" which was used in reference to the Supreme Court's final decision in a case
Held: Respondent No.1 (Advocate General) holding a constitutional office as such, was expected to exhibit the highest standard of professionalism and respect towards judicial institutions
Leaving aside the matter of contempt of this Court, the written statement filed by said respondent before the High Court contained language unbecoming of his office, including the use of the word "rascal" in reference to the petitioner
Such conduct was entirely unacceptable, particularly from an officer of his stature
Similarly, respondent No.2, being an officer of the Court, was duty-bound to uphold and enhance the dignity of the Court rather than engaging in conduct that undermined it
Language employed in his written statement was not only inappropriate but also amounted to a direct affront to the authority of this Court
Thus, the conduct of the respondents warranted the imposition of the maximum penalty under contempt of Court laws
However, while showing grace and in consideration of their unconditional apologies and expressions of remorse, Supreme Court observed that it would be appropriate to accept their apologies and drop the contempt proceedings with a warning to be careful in future.
Judgment & Decree
Raja Saeed Akram Khan, C.J.
The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents on account of the use of derogatory language in their written statements, particularly the phrase "abuse of process of Court", which was used in reference to the Supreme Court's final decision in the case titled Ch. Tariq Farooq v. Azad Govt. and others.
2. The background of the matter is that, through an order dated 20.09.2019, this Court converted the petition for leave to appeal into an appeal, accepted it, admitted the writ petitions for regular hearing, and remanded the case to the High Court for a decision strictly in accordance with the law. A subsequent review petition against this order was also dismissed. However, upon remand, the respondents, specifically respondent No.1 (Advocate General) and respondent No.2 (Mushtaq Ahmed Janjua), submitted written statements containing language that prima facie undermined the dignity of the Court. In particular, respondent No.2 stated in paragraph 5 of his written statement that: "It is a settled principle of law in the administration of justice that fruitless litigation cannot be encouraged, especially when, on the face of it, the factual and legal propositions agitated in the writ petition render it not maintainable. The admission of such a writ petition amounts to an abuse of the process of law and the Court, resulting in unnecessary agony for the parties and the wastage of the Court's precious time. The institution of the writ petition was intended to achieve ulterior motives; therefore, no provision of the Constitution or any law has been violated. The writ petition merits dismissal in limine." The petitioner contends that the phrase "abuse of process of Court" directly challenges and disrespects the Supreme Court's final judgment, thereby constituting contempt of Court.
3. Upon filing of the contempt petition, notices were issued to the respondents, who duly appeared and submitted their replies.
4. Respondent No.1, the Advocate General, contended that the language used in his written statement was unintentional and a result of the heavy workload. He further asserted that paragraph 5 of his written statement differed from that of respondent No.2. He categorically denied any intention to undermine the dignity of this Court and tendered an unconditional apology.
5. Respondent No.2 also appeared before the Court and stated that there was no deliberate intent to disrespect the Court rather it happened due to some negligence. He also placed himself at the mercy of the Court and tendered an unconditional apology.
6. We have heard both contemnors and carefully examined the record. Respondent No.1 holds a constitutional office and, as such, is expected to exhibit the highest standard of professionalism and respect toward judicial institutions. Leaving aside the matter of contempt of this Court, the written statement filed by him before the High Court contains language unbecoming of his office, including the use of the word "rascal" in reference to the petitioner. Such conduct is entirely unacceptable, particularly from an officer of his stature.
7. Similarly, respondent No.2, being an officer of the Court, is duty-bound to uphold and enhance the dignity of the Court rather than engage in conduct that undermines it. The language employed in his written statement is not only inappropriate but also amounts to a direct affront to the authority of this Court. In view of the foregoing, the conduct of the respondents warrants the imposition of the maximum penalty under contempt of Court laws. However, while showing grace, and in consideration of their unconditional apologies and expressions of remorse, we deem it appropriate to accept their apologies and drop the contempt proceedings with a warning to be careful in future. JK/42/SC(AJ&K) Order accordingly.