1998 PLP 176 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IKRAM CHOUDIIRY and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 176 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, C. J., Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, Mamoon Kazi, Ch. Muhammad Arif and Munir A. Sheikh, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IKRAM CHOUDIIRY and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 176 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 176 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, C. J., Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, Mamoon Kazi, Ch. Muhammad Arif and Munir A. Sheikh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 176 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IKRAM CHOUDIIRY and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.M. Zaffar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Zahid Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Raja M. Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.2, 3, 11 and 12.
- M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 4, 7 and 8.
- Qazi M. Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.5 and 6.
- Samad Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.9.
- Mian Tariq Mehmood, Deputy Attorney-General and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record on Court Notice.
- Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court: Samicii curiae.
- S.M. Zaffar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Zahid Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Qazi M. Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.5 and 6.
- Samad Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.9.
- All the contemners are present except respondent No.1 who has been exempted from personal appearance by the Court until such need is felt and he is called upon to appear. Mr. S.M. Zafar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 at the veray outset of the proceedings, regretted the incident of yesterday in the Court in which, without permission, some advocates who are members of the Parliament came to the rostrum and criticised the proceedings with particular emphasis upon the presence of the Chief Justice on the Bench. He then made two suggestions to the Court and requested that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench or Full Bench particularly in view of the judgments rendered by the Benches of this Court at Peshawar and Quetta. He also requested for putting the house of this Court in order. On the subject of constitution of the Bench, he dilated upon section 8(5) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 and Article 204 of the Constitution.
- While the proceedings were in progress, one of the contemners came forward and whispered something in the ear of Mr. S.M. Zafar. Mr. S.M. Zafar told him that since he was not his advocate, he could not make request on his behalf. Meanwhile, Raja Muhamamd Akram got up and came to the rostrum and stated that he was representing Khawaja Muhammad Asif and requested for leave of his client's absence on the ground that he had to attend some very important work. He was allowed to go. A little later a big commotion was heard as if there was riot outside the Court room and slogans were being raised. It appeared that a big mob wanted to rush into the Court room. In fact a few persons did succeed in doing so and one of them informed that the Judges should rise and go away as fully charged mob behind him was forcing entry into the Court room to take the Chief Justice into custody. This fact was supported by the persistent commotion and high pitched slogans of the persons who were in the process of raiding the Court room. In such circumstances, there was no other alternative for the Court, but to adjourn the proceedings and the Judges rose from the Court room and retired. Even outside there was flurry of activities as the people were running here and there and some policemen escorted the Judges to the Chamber of the Cheif Justice.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Criticism of Chief Justice amounting to scandalisation of institution‑‑ Contention was that since according to charge, criticism of the Chief Justice amounted to scandalisation of the Chief Justice, he should not hear the case‑‑ Held, in circumstances, there was no personal element involved and the criticism complained of was of the institution of the Supreme Court of which the Chief Justice was an integral part, as such the criticism was aimed at the institution as a whole. Petitioner in person. Mian Tariq Mehmood, Deputy Attorney‑General and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record on Court Notice. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court: Samicii curiae. Respondent No. 10 in person.
Judgment & Decree
All the contemners are present except respondent No.1 who has been exempted from personal appearance by the Court until such need is felt and he is called upon to appear. Mr. S.M. Zafar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 at the veray outset of the proceedings, regretted the incident of yesterday in the Court in which, without permission, some advocates who are members of the Parliament came to the rostrum and criticised the proceedings with particular emphasis upon the presence of the Chief Justice on the Bench. He then made two suggestions to the Court and requested that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench or Full Bench particularly in view of the judgments rendered by the Benches of this Court at Peshawar and Quetta. He also requested for putting the house of this Court in order. On the subject of constitution of the Bench, he dilated upon section 8(5) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 and Article 204 of the Constitution. He was informed that the decision of the Quetta Bench has been held in abeyance by the Full Bench of this Court at the principal registry and the record has been called for proceedings to be taken in hand at the principal seat. The second suggestion of Mr. S.M. Zafar was on the substance of the charge and in that context he submitted that in the sub-clauses of the charge is made criticism of the Chief Justice, which amounts to scandalisation of the Chief Justice as such he should not hear the case. He was informed that there was no personal element involved and the criticism complained of was of the institution of the Supreme r Court of which the Chief Justice is an integral part as such the criticism was aimed at the institution as a whole. The learned counsel also made reference to an application filed at Karachi before Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian under section 8(5) of the Contempt of Court Act and the order passed thereupon. While the proceedings were in progress, one of the contemners came forward and whispered something in the ear of Mr. S.M. Zafar. Mr. S.M. Zafar told him that since he was not his advocate, he could not make request on his behalf. Meanwhile, Raja Muhamamd Akram got up and came to the rostrum and stated that he was representing Khawaja Muhammad Asif and requested for leave of his client's absence on the ground that he had to attend some very important work. He was allowed to go. A little later a big commotion was heard as if there was riot outside the Court room and slogans were being raised. It appeared that a big mob wanted to rush into the Court room. In fact a few persons did succeed in doing so and one of them informed that the Judges should rise and go away as fully charged mob behind him was forcing entry into the Court room to take the Chief Justice into custody. This fact was supported by the persistent commotion and high pitched slogans of the persons who were in the process of raiding the Court room. In such circumstances, there was no other alternative for the Court, but to adjourn the proceedings and the Judges rose from the Court room and retired. Even outside there was flurry of activities as the people were running here and there and some policemen escorted the Judges to the Chamber of the Cheif Justice. Later on the Registrar came and informed in a state of shock that at the outside gate he was manhandled and a big mob got unruly and made a raid on the Court room where the contempt case was being heard against the respondents including the parliamentarians. Adjourned to 1-12-1997. (Sd.) Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J (Sd.) Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, J (Sd.) Mamoon Kazi, J (Sd.) Ch. Muhammad Arif, J. ' (Sd.) Munir A. Sheikh, J. M.B.A./M-62/S Case adjourned.