P L D 1949 Lahore 572 (PLP)

Proceedings before High Court‑Evidence led relating to matters disclosure of which might be fraught with grave conse quences to State‑Inquiry under the Public and Representative Offices (Disqualification) Act, 1949, against an ex‑Minister‑High Court has power to restrict publication of proceedings in Press- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1899), S.

352. Where allegations of misconduct against an ex‑Minister were the subject of inquiry before the High Court under the Public and Represen tative Offices (Disqualification) Act, 1949, and the evidence led on the charges, in certain respects directly referred to very high matters of State, public disclosure of which might be fraught with the gravest consequences to the State, the High Court, while being satisfied that in a proper case falling under the Act it would be open to the Court to direct that the entire proceedings should be held in camera, ordered that it would be sufficient in the case before Court to restrict publication of proceedings in press to a limited extent, and accordingly directed that the press is entitled to publish everything appearing on the Court's record of proceedings except matter the publication of which is expressly forbidden by the Court. The publication of anything which may fall from the Court, or be said by a witness or by counsel or by any other person, in the course of the proceedings, which does not appear on the official record of proceedings, was prohibited without the specific permission of the Court. Abdul Aziz Khan, A. A. G. for Petitioner. H. S. Suhrawardy, for Respondent. Order.‑This is an application by Mr. Abdul Aziz Khan, counsel for the Crown, praying that all proceedings in this case be held in camera. The ground urged is that matter has appeared in evidence and has been published in the Press which is highly prejudicial to the interests of the State. In arguments, Mr. Abdul Aziz Khan has not pressed that all future proceedings should be held in private, but has prayed that the Court should place restrictions on the publication by the Press of .the proceedings in the case. Mr. Suhrawardy, for the defendant, has no objection to the imposition of proper restrictions of the kind.

2. Proceedings under the Public and Representative Offices (Disqualification) Act, 1949, upon allegations of misconduct by a Minister, within the meaning of the Act, ordinarily relate to affairs of State. In the present case, the allegations relate to a person who was Premier of this Province, at a fairly critical stage of its early history, and the charge preferred have reference to matters of such a nature that it is probably no exaggeration to say that, in certain respects, the evidence led directly refers to very high 'natters of State. Without going into detail, it is sufficient to say that evidence relating to very high matters of State has passed before us, in respect of several charges, and has also appeared in the Press We are inclined to agree with learned counsel for the Crown that the publication of some of this matter can be regarded as detrimental to the highest interests of the State.

3. It is undeniable that this Court has power to control publication of its proceedings, apart from the common law restrictions upon such publications existing under the law of contempt. Thus, it is well‑settled that in cases affecting wards and lunatics, no part of the proceedings may be published without the express permission of the Court, and in cases affecting secret trade and manufacturing processes, the same rule is applied. In the former case, the ground of the restriction is that the jurisdiction relates to the parental and administrative power of the Court. In the latter case, the power proceeds on the basis that in the absence of secrecy ; justice cannot be administered at all. The latter consideration is directly pertinent to these proceedings ; the charges relating to high matters of State and the conduct in question being that of a Premier of an important Province, it is impossible to investigate them fully, for the due formation of a just decision, without entering upon matters, the disclosure of which would be detrimental to the highest interests of the State. Therefore, the consideration that full publicity should be given to all proceedings in this Court, to which it must not be understood that we attach any but the highest importance, must give place to the paramount duty of doing full justice in the case, to the extent that appropriate restrictions may be placed upon the extent of publicity which may be given to the Court's proceedings. And while the functions of the Court in this case do not fall within its parental or administrative jurisdiction, but within a special jurisdiction created by Statute, it is clear that by the Statute, the Court is charged with a duty which might involve investigation of matters, the public disclosure of which might be fraught with the gravest consequences to the State, and which cannot be placed at a lower level in importance, from the point of view of the exercise of the power to restrict publication vesting in this Court, than the interests of an infant ward or of a lunatic whose affairs are before the Court. We are indeed satisfied that in a proper case falling under the new Statute, it would be open to the Court to direct that the entire proceedings should be held in camera. In this very case, we have ourselves recorded the evidence of one witness in camera, and we shall not hesitate to adopt the same mode on any future occasion when it becomes necessary.

4. For the present, however, it will be sufficient to restrict publica tion to a limited extent, and we accordingly direct as under. The Press will be entitled to publish everything appearing on the Court's record of proceedings, except matter the publication of which is expressly forbidden by the Court. The publication of anything which may fall from the' Court, or be said by a witness or by counsel or by any other person, in the course of the proceedings, which does not appear on the official record' of these proceedings, is prohibited without the specific permission of the Court. The Court will take steps to secure that the grant of such permission is not unduly delayed. A. H. Publication of proceedings restricted.