P L D 1993 Supreme Court 297 (PLP)

(a) Educational Institution‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Involvement of student in politics resulting in disruption of peaceful atmosphere of the University ‑‑‑ Student having been found guilty of violating, the undertaking submitted to the University to the effect that he win not indulge in politics during his studies at the University was ordered to be expelled by the university ‑‑‑ Accused student who was aggrieved on account of action by the University tried in his petition before Supreme Court to explain the accusation against him and stated that University was prepared to forgive and forget ‑‑‑ Explanation of the student was unacceptable to the Court which found the petition of accused student liable to be ejected in limine‑‑ University official who was present in the Court, however, confirmed the statement of the student made in the petition that "Vice‑ Chancellor" of the University was ‑prepared to forgive and forget if the student showed his real remorse and sought forgiveness from the Court also ‑‑‑ Accused student, however, with the permission of the Court submitted an undertaking making therein solemn commitment to the University as well as to the Court that he would change himself ‑‑‑ university Official also accepted the said undertaking ‑‑‑ Supreme Court appreciated and also considered it laudable for the Vice‑ Chancellor to have forgiven the accused student in the larger interest of the latter's future which undoubtedly will benefit, indirectly at least, the Institution ‑‑‑ Supreme Court also observed that though indiscipline must be curbed with very heavy hand but Court was also not unmindful of the parental jurisdiction of the educational institutions; particularly those who occupy the highest position therein ‑‑‑ Punishment, in the parental jurisdiction though was an alimentary component for correction, forgiving and forgetting, as was well known, were equally important components thereof ‑‑‑ Teacher in parental jurisdiction must in all cases of his or his institution's defiance or insult would not resort to a harsh punishment for correction, a reprimand in sharp and incisive language and manner can prove more useful for both sides ‑‑ Forgiveness indeed emanates from complete satisfaction of the person who is exercising this and it is also in line with the teachings of Islam ‑‑‑ Exercise of such beneficent powers of the educational institution by those who have to go through a difficult experience, did justify a course which the Vice‑ Chancellor had very wisely chosen ‑‑‑ Supreme Court while appreciating the laudable position taken by the two sides in the case disposed of, the petition in terms of undertaking and observations and remarks with further direction that the accused student shall be taken back in the University as well in the hostel. (b) Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑

0. XXVII,. R. 7(1) ‑‑‑ Contempt of Court ‑‑‑ Even if a gross contempt has been committed it is not necessary to take action in every matter‑‑ Judge/Court must not in all cases of his or his institution's defiance or insult, resort to harsh punishment for correction ‑‑‑ Reprimand in sharp and incisive language and manner can prove more useful for both sides ‑‑‑ PrincipIe of Law in Islam in large majority of cases works miracles.‑‑[Contempt of Court]. Contempt jurisdiction in terms is a species of the greater corrective power and jurisdiction. For example a Court of law also is not required or compelled to take note of or always to take action as and when its contempt is committed. For the Supreme Court also the very structure of the Rules governing this jurisdiction makes it incumbent for the Chief Justice to go slow. Rule 7(l) of Order XXVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 provides that when prima facie material is available, the Chief Justice before even issuing notice would ordinarily examine the "expediency or propriety" of taking any action in the matter. The language used in the rule implies that even if a gross contempt has been committed it is not necessary to take action in every matter. He often consults his colleagues and also nominates the Judges for the consideration of the subject of expediency and propriety. It is an absolutely misunderstood concept that in the parental jurisdiction of the Judge/Court he must in all cases of his or his institution's defiance or insult, resort to a harsh punishment for correction. A reprimand in sharp and incisive language and manner could prove more useful for both sides. And to add to this the principle of "AFW' in Islam in large majority of cases works miracles. Manzoor Hussain v. Zahoor Ahmad 1992 SCMIZ 1191; Ch. Akbar Ali v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence 1991 SCMIZ 2114; Abdul Majid Khan v. Mst. Anwar Begum PLD 1989 SC 362; Sikandar Sadiq v. University of.Peshawar PLD 1988 SC 638; Ahmad v. Vice‑ Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology PLD 1981 sc 464 and Sh. Muhammad Aman Nomani v. Principal, Government College, Lahore PLD 1973 Note 146 at p‑221 ref. Petitioner in person.