1985 PLP 1445 (SCMR)
Maulana KAUSAR NIAZI and another — Petitioners Versus MAHMOOD AZAM FAROOQI and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1445 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Zaffar Hussain Mirza, M.S.H. Quraishi and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Maulana KAUSAR NIAZI and another — Petitioners Versus MAHMOOD AZAM FAROOQI and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Contempt of Court |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1445 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Contempt of Court as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1445 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Zaffar Hussain Mirza, M.S.H. Quraishi and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1445 (SCMR) (Maulana KAUSAR NIAZI and another — Petitioners Versus MAHMOOD AZAM FAROOQI and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aftab Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record. Notice to Attorney-General for Pakistan and Munir A. Shaikh, Dy. A.-G. for Respondents.
- Zafar Mahmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Aftab Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M.Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- M.A. Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Aftab Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M.Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing (in all Cases): 8th May, 1985.
- Aftab Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record. Notice to Attorney‑General for Pakistan and Munir A. Shaikh, Dy. A.‑G. for Respondents.
- Zafar Mahmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Aftab Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M.Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- M.A. Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- They are duly represented. Mr. Mahmood Azam Farooqi who was Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan, at the relevant time, another respondent has also submitted to the Court process and is represented by the same Advocate‑on‑Record who represents the aforementioned respondents. The learned counsel for the applicants have not pressed the application, against the remaining respondents.
- The aforementioned 4 respondents submitted their joint written statement in pursuance of the directions of this Court, which was prefixed with an apology but the same appears to us to be conditional. When pointed out to Mr. Aftab Ahmad Khan their learned counsel, he made a categorical statement that the defence, if any, made in the said written statement by way of condition or otherwise, is withdrawn and that instead they tender unqualified and unconditional apology. He further stated that they throw themselves at the mercy of the Court. Learned counsel further explained that they undertake not to repeat any act which might directly or indirectly influence or prejudice any Court proceedings. Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, the learned Advocate -on‑Record for the said 4 respondents as also representing Mr. Muhammad Azam Farooqi has placed on record a fresh apology in writing which undoubtedly is unqualified and unconditional. Qazi Said Ahmad one of the respondents present in Court has made a spontaneous submission as if representing the sentiments of the respondents that 'they have the highest regard for the Court and that the apology tendered by them is unqualified and sincere'.
Headnotes / Summary
Unconditional apology--Supreme Court, after taking note of unconditional apology and being satisfied with same emphasised that it was noticed by Court with a sense of anguish that tendency had grown to influence course of judicial proceedings directly or indirectly, through public utterances or through instrumentality of powerful public media- Courts being an important organ of State and their main function being to ameliorate grievances in field of law and justice, it was desired that so as to let Courts perform their function freely, all concerned and in particular public functionaries should refrain from acting in any manner which might hinder smooth administration of justice. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.l-R of 1979 Petitioner in person Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3-R of 1979 Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.7-R of 1979
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.7‑R of 1979 M.A. Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Aftab Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M.Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing (in all Cases): 8th May, 1985. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C. J.‑‑The allegation in these three contempt applications, is regarding publication of certain material which, according to the applicants, could have influenced the course of justice in a pending matter before this Court. Notices were issued to the Chairman, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, Chairman, Pakistan Television Corporation, Director General, Radio Pakistan and Managing Director, Pakistan Television. They are duly represented. Mr. Mahmood Azam Farooqi who was Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan, at the relevant time, another respondent has also submitted to the Court process and is represented by the same Advocate‑on‑Record who represents the aforementioned respondents. The learned counsel for the applicants have not pressed the application, against the remaining respondents. While issuing notices to the respondents on 21st January, 1979, in presence of the then Attorney‑General, his undertaking was noticed that the Pakistan Television and Radio Pakistan would not telecast/ broadcast the questioned programme during the pendency of the concerned matter. In view of this undertaking no interim order was passed. No complaint has been made from the petitioner‑side regarding the conduct of the respondents during the ' pendency of these proceedings. The aforementioned 4 respondents submitted their joint written statement in pursuance of the directions of this Court, which was prefixed with an apology but the same appears to us to be conditional. When pointed out to Mr. Aftab Ahmad Khan their learned counsel, he made a categorical statement that the defence, if any, made in the said written statement by way of condition or otherwise, is withdrawn and that instead they tender unqualified and unconditional apology. He further stated that they throw themselves at the mercy of the Court. Learned counsel further explained that they undertake not to repeat any act which might directly or indirectly influence or prejudice any Court proceedings. Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, the learned Advocate -on‑Record for the said 4 respondents as also representing Mr. Muhammad Azam Farooqi has placed on record a fresh apology in writing which undoubtedly is unqualified and unconditional. Qazi Said Ahmad one of the respondents present in Court has made a spontaneous submission as if representing the sentiments of the respondents that 'they have the highest regard for the Court and that the apology tendered by them is unqualified and sincere'. After taking note of the unconditional and unqualified apologies as also the oral statement made in Court by one of the respondents we are satisfied that they have genuinely regretted their act and have expressed their sense of genuine contriteness. Thus, proper amends have been made. We, therefore, accept the said unconditional apologies. It is, however, emphasised that it has been noticed by the Court with a sense of anguish that a tendency is growing to influence the course of judicial proceedings, directly or indirectly, through public utterances or through the instrumentality of powerful public media. Courts are an important organ of the State and their main function is to ameliorate the grievances in the field of law and justice. So as to let them perform their functions freely it is expected from all concerned and in particular the public functionaries to refrain from acting in any manner which might hinder the smooth administration of justice. With these observations we discharge the notices. M . B . A . Notice discharged.