P L D 1993 Supreme Court 310 (PLP)

, MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑We have heard the learned Attorney‑General and the learned Senior counsel for the respondent. The written submissions of the learned attorney‑General are more than clear that if summed up the entire case is to be seen in the context of the three statements in writing submitted by the respondent in Court. They are Annexed A (dated 12‑2‑1993), B and C (dated 1‑3‑1993) to this order. The emphasis of the learned Attorney‑General is on the letter dated 12‑2‑1993 wherein the respondent stated to this Court that he did try to convey a message to the Supreme Court during the hearing of Haji Saifullah's case with a view to influence the Court's judgment and thus it constituted its contempt. In other words what the learned Attorney‑General meant was that such a statement n writing in the very face of the Court repeating what has been stated above is actionable. However., to be fair to the other side the Attorney‑General drew our attention to the two statements in writing submitted by the respondent on 1‑3‑1993 (Annexures B and Q wherein he repeated what is stated above. But previous two statements ‑‑‑ Contents of last statement of accused submitted to at the same time, be also categorically stated that he made the said statement the Court, however, showed that he had expressed deep regrets for the before the Press at such an occasion that there was no pretention or motive to harm or damage the interest of any person or institution ". And there was no intention to scandalize or ‑bring "this honourable Court and its Judges into hatred, ridicule or contempt". He expressed his gratitude to the Court for "accepting his aforesaid statement" as the basis for the proceedings under Rule 7 of Order XXVII of this court. The respondent further emphasized that he had the highest respect for A national institutions "and more particularly for the Supreme Court of Pakistan as the highest Court of the Country Which is a symbol of national sovereignty At the end he also expressed his "grateful thanks for the courtesy shown to him". In the second statement submitted by him on the Ist March, 1993 he tried again to emphasize that his version of the statement said to have been made to the Press on 4th February, 1993, was the correct one; because, even before the receipt of the letter from the Supreme Court on 10‑2‑1993 he had on 8‑2‑1993 is.‑,ued a press release which contained the said version. He also repeated his case in this behalf that the answers at Meet the Press were "given in good faith in response to the questions without any ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑‑ and more particularly the Supreme Court of Pakistan ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ which is a symbol of national sovereignty and integrity'. He tried to explain his compulsions in 1988 on account of which he is said to have attempted to convey a message to the Supreme Court. In the last paragraph of this second statement submitted on Ist March, 1993 he reiterated his deep regrets to the Court for the most unfortunate embarrassment caused to the Court on account of the event of 4th February, 1993. He thus prayed that "this Honourable Court be graciously pleased to accept this statement and may be pleased to close these proceedings". It needs to be noted here that the word 'deeply' has been inserted in the typed text 'in the handwriting of the respondent when he signed the statement' ‑‑ it has been so certified by Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, the learned senior counsel for the respondent. Indeed this word 'deeply' thus prefixed to the word 'regretted' is indicative of his real feeling of penitence and contrition over what h b done to this Court without any intention, 4motive' or 'pretence'. in these proceedings. There is considerable case‑law in the field of Contempt on the questions as are involved in this case. Some of the judgments have been cited by the teamed Attorney‑General; two of which the learned counsel for the respondent also, tried to distinguish. Ultimately, the case reported as M. Inayat Khan v. M. Anwar (PLD 1976 SC 354 at pages 376 and 377), has been read and considered as having similarities with the present case in so far as the possible result is concerned. In the said case, after noticing certain mitigating circumstances going in favour of Mr. M Anwar, who was also a very senior and highly respected lawyer of the country despite very grave contempt, he was only reprimanded. This word 'severely' also was used and it was 'ordered accordingly'. In the present case when the matter,was before the other Bench of the Court, note was taken of the statement of the respondent of 12th February, 1993 submitted in writing to the court in which he stated that he tried to convey a message to the Supreme Court only regarding his views abou elections of 1988. The other allegations that he got the Supreme judgment reversed, attributed to him by the Press, however, denied him as "wholly unfounded". Though it is absolutely incorrect that any message was conveyed Supreme Court in any manner whatsoever and the whole of the story has strongly condemned and denied by the then Chief Justice as "rubbish;" y( took serious note of the reiteration and admission of the respondent i statement of 12th February, 1993 regarding his alleged attempt at sendin such message. At the same time (i.e. the earliest possible moment, expression of emphatic denial thereof, officially . by the Court, during hearing itself), treating this as direct contempt (in face of Court) action also taken brevi manu and observations and remarks were made then there; which, were rightly taken in the peculiar circumstances of this gas severe reprimand. For the same reason they were also made the subject‑m of certain objections and applications with the same sense, meaning interpretation. Two of us who were in the Bench of three Judges dealing this case at the earlier stage reiterated this aspect and element in the ca loud thinking that a second severe reprimand might not be necessary a conclusion of the proceedings if a more severe punishment is not called for this issue the learned counsel for the respondent also stood up and expr his agreement. It may be' mentioned here that the said observations remarks as they were brevi manu were in respect of more than one eleme this case. Firstly, they had to express the denial of the allegations as already stated being absolutely incorrect. The re‑action of the Court as such had to be expressed. And having taken note of the contempt in the statement manu, it had to be dealt with severely in order to stifle and stop further d contempt in face of the Court. With regard to this last aspect of the matte respondent had to be firmly told that he while in Court particularly facing a serious charge of contempt, would have to follow the rules of Court. Otherwise a repeated contempt in face which was then visualised not have been stopped if not controlled and checked in the very beginning example, in statement though submitted on 21‑2‑1993 in reply to the ch framed on the same day, the respondent as against our 'firm' resolve to any 'repeat' contempt in face, stated in writing as follows: I firmly' believe that it was my duty to do what I did and if a such occasion arise again I would consider it my duty to repeat my what I had done." Not only this but he also tried in peculiar way to withdraw from proceedings but better re‑action was shown when he was ordered to re present in the Court. It, however, has to be noted; firstly, that at that he had withdrawn his lawyers and he was acting without proper legal ad Subsequently, there was absolute change and marked respect and regard was showed to the Court which would again be referred to in the discussion which follows. It is also necessary to clarify here that the observations and remarks made by the Court as severe reprimand were not exactly in the terms and the context as has been reported in the press or Rave been reproduced in the aforementioned certain objections and applications. It is accepted as legal proposition that a Judge who stops summarily (brevi manu), any attempt (contmept) to interfere with the course of justice actually performs his Constitutional and public duty. The duty of a Judge sitting to punish the Court's own contempt, therefore, means to prevent and stifle any damage to public confidence in an important organ of the State and not the protection of the individual Judges. No personal interest is therefore involved. These are accepted rules in the dispensation of justice in contempt cases. It may be emphasized here that in this context when the Judge takes up the proceedings or acts in response to direct contempt the proceedings are not to take the form of the trial and the same may be coucluded brevi manu which means "summarily'. It is not thus necessary that there be a written charge, framing of issues, or to hold regular trial or examination ‑‑ No other proof is, necessary when it is a case of direct contempt. There are cases like the present one for example, a grand jury report filed in open Court if contemptuous, was treated as "direct contempt" even if the grand jurer was absent from the Court when its contents became known. Similarly written statement amounting to contempt of Court if presented before the Court, it is analogous to contempt committed in the presence and face of the Court. Thus in so far as the direct contempt is concerned there is not much difference between the words spoken or acts done in face of the Court or statement submitted to it in writing. Similarly there is no difference in a case where contempt is committed in the face of the Court or where it is scandalized by a published, printed or written material. In this connection making of an irrelevant or scandalous attack in a pleading filed in Court is a direct contempt which as already observed can be dealt with immediately brevi manu. So was the case when the statement of the respondent dated 12‑2‑1993 was presented and persistently pressed in the Court. Lastly, a distinction between sedition and contempt has to be brought out. In the former the penal provisions are meant to protect the structure of the executive while the law of contempt is meant to stop and punish any interference in the course of justice. Another aspect, however, is that while sedition is punished inter alia for purpose of deterrence, the treatment in the case of contempt as held by this Court in a recent judgment, Shah Alain. Khan v. Vice‑Chancellor, Agricultural University, Peshawar (Constitution Petition No. 2 of 1993 decided on 10th February, 1993), is pari material with ' the parental jurisdiction of the Court combining and encompassing both firmness and compassion. There has been only a brief reference to the Islamic point of view on the question of contempt of Court, as well as some public interest therein. As proper arguments have not been heard at length to our satisfaction on this question and further the case is being decided on other simple issues, it would not be proper to express any opinion leading to a final determination. However, for further examination in a proper case the subject can be introduced thus: On the one hand there is a very emphatical command in the Holy Quran to the effect There is an equally strong command in the Sunnah of our Prophet (S.A.W.S.) contemner is entitled as to the extent the and then as a citizen to A circumstances of the case permit by keeping the other mandate in view that the judiciary represented by the Courts is the very foundation of an Islamic State. There is an other tradition in a decision of contempt case by Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.S.) himself; when some one criticised his order, he was reprimanded there and then to the effect It is very difficult to fathom the In application of this precedent law in Islam; but some commentators and jurists have treated this admonition or reprimand as of the gravest type because the Prophet (s.a.w.s) had not uttered any for any . To elaborate this‑Sunnah command with reference to what is and was required in the peculiar circumstances of this case is not necessary any more. This very concept about the position of (the of course Jxi‑) was also projected in a decision of the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court to the effect that after ( Aej) and it is the next important foundational element in Islam and Islamic State. See Mujeeb‑ur‑Rehman v. Federal Government of Pakistan (1988 .C.M.R. 897 para 16). While closing the remarks on this subject it would be instructive to add to this judgment one view contained in and the other an article as annexures D and E thereto. In the light of the foregoing discussion we feel that when the respondent filed the statement dated 12‑2‑1993, in Court and when taking note I thereof the other Bench of this Court earlier dealing with the case, made! remarks which have rightly been taken as severe admonition and reprimand, in so far as the retrieving of the honour and dignity. of the Court is concerned. The purpose and object of the law of contempt thus stood satisfied. Not only this, subsequently the respondent in his statements and conduct gave respect and high regard to the Court; by not only submitting to its directions and orders but also by accepting in writing various elements already analysed which can operate as mitigation in his favour. It is true that if we were to act on the precedent in the case of Anwar, a fresh severe reprimand at this concluding stage might have been necessary but in our view once a reprimand having been administered by the other Bench, repeating it for the second time in the circumstances of the present case is not necessary. There is, another aspect of the matter. While Rule 9 of the Order XXVII of the Supreme Court Rules shows that the contempt committed in face of the Court can be taken note of forthwith so as to determine not only guilt of a contemner but also to award punishment there and then; the principle underlying Rule 10 is that when at any time during the pendency of the proceedings the Court is satisfied with statement tendered in Court which relates to the purging of contempt, it is not always necessary to take any further action in that behalf. The concepts of parental jurisdiction then take over and! play their part and "any order that is considered fit by the Court, may be passed". The principle of civil contempt that purge thereof is the forgiveness, of the insult against the Court's dignity, which can be granted before the judgment or imposition of punishment or at any time before or after its finding, can be made applicable mutatis mutandis to the adjudication of criminal contempt also. That is, when the purge takes place the Court may clear‑'or relieve the contemner from the charge. This very principle, it appears, wa 'Ifi‑‑.the mind of the law‑makers when the proviso to section 4, of the Contempt of Court Act was enacted. (Though it might be arguable whether it comes in conflict with the provisions contained in Article 204 of the Constitution or goes beyond the 'Regulation by law' permitted by the same Article). It provides that on being satisfied "that the accused, whether after defending himself or without offering any defence, has purged himself of the contempt of Court, the Court may discharge the accused or remit his sentencQ". With the earlier admonition and reprimand as already mentioned which was necessary and required in the circumstances and in the light of the foregoing discussion, we consider this case also fit for discharge. These. proceedings are concluded with order accordingly. Before closing it needs to be clarified that this Court had taken cognizance of the present case under Order XXVII Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, in particular on the receipt of the statement dated 12‑2‑1993, submitted by the respondent to the Court. The factual question as to whether in addition to the said statement the respondent made any other graver statement on 4th February, 1993, has been the subject‑matter of factual controversy of affirmation and denial from two respectable sides. Some evidence having been recorded it has not yet proved, conclusive. Moreover,'! communications have been received by the Court with regard to the possible availability of the audio cassette tape, an enquiry regarding which has been entrusted to the Registrar of this Court. Till that aspect becomes absolutely clear it will not be proper nor expedient to continue to proceed any further. regarding that aspect of the case and the same is dropped. it is with a further clarification 'that if and when as a result of the aforementioned enquiry or otherwise more tangible material is brought before the Court it becomes necessary again to examine the expediency or propriety of taking action in the said aspect of the case, the Court may then pass such fresh order as may be deemed fit in accordance with the law. With these clarifications the proceedings in this Misc. No. 12 of 1993 stand concluded. ANNEXURE 'A CONFIDENTIAL 1‑National Park Road Rawalpindi Cantt. Number. 4064/13/A February 12, 1993 The Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Rawalpindi. Dear Sir, This is in response to your Confidential letter No. P. Reg./93‑SCJ, dated 9th February 1993, which was received by me on 10th February 1993. Kindly note that two days before receiving this letter, i.e. on the 8th February 1993, 1 had already issued a' Press Release, which was to the following effect, and which was published in the National Press on the 9th February, 1993 "I find that various versions of my statement have been published in the National press of what I said, in answer to a question in "Meet the Press" session at the Lahore Press # Club on 4th of February 1993. In order to put the record straight, I feel called upon to clarify, that all that I said on that occasion was, that, I did try to convey to the Honourable Supreme Court, that, we had given a solemn undertaking to the, nation that elections to the National Assembly would be held according to the schedule already announced and that therefore, it would be in the best interest of the nation that we stick to our promise and the said elections were allowed to be held,,. accordingly. When further asked whether my action did not constitute "Contempt of Court", my answer was, that I definitely did not think so, as the information was sought to be conveyed in good faith and in national interest. In the circumstances, the impression given by the press rcportings, that, I had claimed, that I got the Supreme Court judgment reversed, is wholly unnfounded May I further add that my response in question was to a question asked by Mr. Aurangzeb of the Daily Muslim, and the report was filed by him and published in the daily Muslim on 5th February, as Annex. 'A'.

4. I hope this answers your query. However, I may respectfully add. t hat should the Honourable Supreme Court still require any further information in the context of para. 2 of its Confidential letter under reply, I shall most respectfully comply with the learned Court direction. Yours faithfully, (Sd.) General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Beg. GENERAL BEG ADMITS HE TRIED TO INFLUENCE SUPREME COURT VERDICT Restoration of Junejo Govemment AURANG ZEB; LAHORE Feb. 4.‑‑‑ General Aslam Beg former Chief of the Army Staff conceded he did try to influence the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1988 not to give a perdict for the restoration of Muhammad Khan Junejo's dismissed Government or the dissolved National Assembly. He said, he did so with the intention that generl election in the country should take place as scheduled, which he claimed, he had promised to the nation. Gen Beg, made this starling observation at the Lahore Press Club in "Meet the Thursday. Press Programme" here on However, he did not agree to another question‑ that he sent two emissaries to Bilawal House before the 1990 general elections, with a view to su suggesting to Bhutto family not to take part in the elections. Gen. Beg spoke at length on national and international developments and said now time has come for Pakistan to‑give a clear picture of its nuclear programme as we are under pressure ,because of it. The Government, he said, could do this by taking the people into confidence, whether or not it possessed any number of atomic bombs, as against India which has a stock of nearly 60 nuclear bombs. According to Gen. Aslam, this confession would help release pressure and the world would regard Pakistan as a 'nuclear State'. In this situation, Pakistan could sign NPT, by keeping the programme at a certain level. In this case there would be no roll back of nuclear programme but it would be freezed at the existing stage. Gen. Beg said Pakistan while signing the NPT must seek nuclear protection from China, Russia, America and other nuclear powers. The former COAS said after the end of the Cold War and disintegration of the USSR, the USA has emerged as a sole superpower, with colonial designs. The USA is trying to manipulate its interests with the help of other former colonial powers. Gen. Beg said Russia is still a superpower and the USA would try hard to isolate it. For this purpose the USA has improved its relations with India and described China as a favoured country. Meanwhile, Russia, he said, is trying to re‑emerge as a superpower and is confronting America at different places. He said in Bosnia, Russia opposed American proposal for military intervention and she also protested over use of force by America in Iraq. Similarly, the Russian President, he said, had made big offers to India and announced to transfer rocket technology to it despite American opposition. Gen. Beg said Pakistan was faced with a very complex Kashmir problem as it is a disputed area and Pakistan could not withdraw moral and political support to Kashmir. He said Pakistan should be prepared to accept the allegation of terrorism on Kashmir cause. Gen. Beg said the present troika is not workable and there must be one authority to lay down basic policy lines on important matters. Mirza Aslam Beg said it was a geo‑political compulsion that Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and Afghanistan should jointly work for common interest. Gen. Beg said Israel was afraid of Islamic organisations engaged it Jehad against it. Israel has indicated that Yasser Arafat was more acceptable to them than any other power. The USA is acting against the Islamic organisations by calling them fundamentalists. In Algeria, Islamic forces won election but they were not handed over power. The USA dispatched its forces to Somalia, to have control over the oil reservoirs found there. Referring to Afghanistan he said an interesting situation loped there. Hekmatyar and Dostum have joined hands there against Ahmed Shah and Sayaf and Rabbani groups. This he said, could lead to an unprecedented bloodbath. [The Muslim ‑‑‑ Islamabad, 5th February, 19931 ANNEXURE'B' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN In the matter of: . Misc. No.12 of 1993 Statement of General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Beg As to the respondent actually said on 4‑2‑1993, in answer to a question 'Meet the Press' at Lahore, was as follows:‑‑ "I did try to convey to the Honourable Supreme Court that, we had given a solemn undertaking to the nation that elections to the National Assembly would be held according to the schedule already announced and that therefore, it would be in the best interest of the nation that we stick to our promise and the said elections were allowed to be held accordingly."

2. This was said by him as far back as on 8‑2‑1993 in a Press Release published in the national press on 9‑2‑1993 i.e. before the. receipt of the Confidential Letter of this honourable Court (received on 10‑2‑1993).

3. As explained already on more than one occasion, the answers at the 'Meet the Press' were given "in good faith in response to the questions. It was an/occasion when truth came out without any pretention or motive to harm or damage the interest of any person or institution, and Were not intended to scandalise the Court and to bring this Honourable Court and its Judges into hatred, ridicule or contempt". The respondent is grateful to this honourable Court for accepting his ,aforesaid statement.

4. The respondent believes in institutions. and not in individuals. He has the highest respect for all national institutions, and more particularly for the Supreme Court of Pakistan as the highest Court of the country, which is a symbol of national sovereignty and integrity.

5. At the relevant time, the respondent strongly felt that he was duty bound to convey the message to this honourablc~ Court on 5‑10‑1988. This course was considered necessary in view of various factors as mentioned in some detail in the earlier statement. At the relevant time there were several methods open to the respondent to convey his request. However, in his humble judgment, he chose what he thought was the most appropriate method under the peculiar prevalent circumstances. The suggested alternative that respondent could have come to the Court as a citizen personally, would not, in the humble opinion of the respondent, have been appropriate, since it would have certainly created a furore and it would have been grossly misunderstood, apart from the fact that it would have created a bad precedent, as the respondent was occupying the post of COAS at that critical juncture.

6. The respondent is highly appreciative that the proceedings are concluding on a positive note, thus avoiding the possibility of an enlarged controversy which he was anxious to avoid from the very beginning of the proceedings, not only in the national interest but also in the interest of this august institution. Finally, the respondent expresses his grateful thanks for the courtesy shown to him in today's proceedings, and wishes that this chapter should now stand closed with no hard feelings on either side,. Rawalpindi March 1, 1993 Respondent ( Sd.) General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Beg ANNEXURE C IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN In the matter of. Misc. No. 12 of 1993 statement of General (Reid.) Mirza Astain Bq The respondent respectfully submits as under:

1. What the respondent actually said on 4‑2‑1993, in answer to a question in the 'Meet the Press' at Lahore, was as follows:‑‑ "I did try to convey to the Honourable Supreme Court that., we had given a solemn undertaking to the nation that elections to the National Assembly would be held according to the schedule already announced and that therefore, it would be in the best interest of the nation that we stick to our promise and the said elections were allowed to be held accordingly."

2. This was clarified by him as far back as on 8‑2‑1993 in a Press Release published in the national press on 9‑2‑1993 i.e. before the receipt on 10‑2‑1993, of the Confidential Letter of this Honourable Court. 3 As explained already on more than one occasion, the answers at the Meet the Press were given 'in good faith in response to the questions, without any pretention or motive to harm or damage the interest of any person or institution, and were not intended to scandalise the Court and to bring this Honourable Court and its Judges into hatred, ridicule or contempt.' The respondent believes in institutions and not in individuals. He has the highest respect for all national institutions, and more particularly for the Supreme Court of Pakistan as the highest Court of the country, which is a symbol of national sovereignty and integrity. . At the relevant time, the respondent, strongly felt that he was duty bound to convey the message to this honourable Court on 5‑10‑1988. This course was considered necessary in view of various factors as mentioned in some detail in the earlier statement. At the relevant time there were several methods open to the respondent to convey his request. However, in his humble judgment, he chose what he thought was the most appropriate method under the peculiar prevalent circumstances. The suggested alternative that respondent could have come to the Court as a citizen personally, since it would have certainly created a furore and it would have been grossly misunderstood, apart from the fact that it would have created a bad precedent, as the respondent was occupying the post of COAS at that critical juncture, and was a member of the Emergency Council. 6, The respondent is highly appreciative that the. proceedings are concluding on a positive note, thus avoiding the possibility of an enlarged controversy which he was anxious to avoid from the very beginning of the proceedings, not only in the national interest but also in the interest of this august institution.

7. Finally, the respondent expresses his grateful thanks for the courtesy shown to him in today's proceedings, and wishes that the regretful situation which arose after the event on 4th February, 1993 and any consequent embarrassment caused to this Honourable Court, is most unfortunate and is deeply regretted. The respondent never intended to scandalise this Honourable Court or to cause it any embarrassment. The respondent firmly believes in the supremacy of law, and that nobody is above the law. It is therefore requested that this Honourable Court be graciously pleased to accept this statement and may be pleased to close these proceedings. Rawalpindi March 1, 1993 Respondent (Sd.) General (Retd.) Mirza Aslarn Beg ANNEXURED' L/ L 1:,; .7‑ Lf 19 9rj:r,.jL4 NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑ I have had the privilege of seeing the order proposed by my Lord the Chief Justice in this matter. In view, however, of the widespread interest that these proceedings have evoked I would also like to say a few words of my own. On 4‑3‑1993 when the proceedings ended in Rawalpindi the learned Attorney‑General and the learned counsel for respondent were directed to submit written arguments in the matter. However, the learned Attorney General alone has so far submitted a note of his submissions. But since learned counsel for both the sides were heard and it is not necessary to await the detailed written arguments, especially in view of the order we propose to make, we proceed to dispose of this matter today. The learned Attorney‑General, in his submissions, points out that the matters which finally emerge for consideration are these: (b) "(a) The respondent admits that he did try/attempt to convey to this Hon'ble Court through Mr. Wasim Sajjad, C.W.1., on 5th October, 1988, what he considered to be a message to indicate his concern about the decision being taken in Haji Saifullah's case then pending before the Supreme Court and desiring that his views that the scheduled elections should not be countermanded should be conveyed to the Court. However, according to Mr. Wasim Sajad no such message was given to him by the respondent during the meeting he held with him on 5th October, 1988. (b)That the alleged message which the respondent sought to convey through Mr. Wasim Sajjad was conveyed by him in good faith and in public interest without any intention to commit contempt of Court. That in the aforesaid meeting held by the respondent with Mr. Wasim. Sajjad, the respondent told Mr.Wasim Sajjad that 'it does not matter to him that decision is given by the Supreme Court'. This statement of the respondent shows that he would respect whatever decision was given by the Court That in the afiresaid meeting held by respondent with Mr Waseem Sajjad, the respondent told Mr Waseen Sajjad it does not matter to him that what decision is given by the supreme Court ; This statement of the respondent shows that he would respect whatever decision was given by the court. That no message whatever was in point of fact ever conveyed to the Supreme Court nor was it published at the material time so as to have influenced the learned Judges of the Court or have caused any interference in the proceedings of the Court or brought the Court into hatred, ridicule or contempt. That the so‑called attempt on the part of the respondent to convey some message to the Court was disclosed to the public for the first time on 4th February, 1993 (four years and five months after the judgment in Haji Saifullah's case was delivered and published). Hence, it was, at best, a disclosure of a past event. (f) That though ignorance of law is no excuse, the disclosure under reference by the respondent being of a past and closed transaction/proceedings can, if not tainted with malice, provide a mitigating circumstance. Reference was also made by the learned Attorney‑General to some extracts from Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 17 inter alia: Article 8, appearing at page 19, which reads as follows: "Before utterances may be punished as contempt as constituting a clear and present danger working a substantive evil in the administration of justice, the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high." No such danger to the due administration of justice existed in the circumstances of this case. The submission of the learned Attorney‑General is that though the evidence on record and the statements of the respondent, especially his statement made during the 'Meet the Press Programme' held at the Press Club, Lahore on 4‑2‑1993 and also the contents of his letter addressed to this Court on 12‑2‑1993 (confirming that he did try to convey a message to the Supreme Court in relation to pending matters for a decision, a position which he maintained in his last two statements dated 1‑3‑1993) do fall within the preview of contempt. However, the contents of para. 7 of his last statement dated 1‑3‑1993 wherein he has expressed deep regrets for the unfortunate embarrassment caused to the Court on account of the events of the 41h February, 1993 and requested the Court to accept this statement and to 'be pleased to close these proceedings' could constitute a mitigating circumstance, In this letter, he also submitted that he 'never intended to scandalise this Hon'ble Court or to cause ii, any ewbtrrassment'. Hence the statement of 4th February, 1993 appears to have been made in good faith ' Another noteworthy feature, is that the statement of Mr. Wasim Sajjad shows that he did not receive any message from the respondent, for the Supreme Court or for the Judges to allow the elections to the National Assembly to be held according to the schedule nor did he convey any message whatever to them. On the other hand, he had L Id Mr. Wasim SaLad that it was the "prerogative of the Supreme Court to give any decision". The controversy, accordingly, is thus confined to the respondent's statement made on 4‑2‑1993 during 'Meet the Press Programme his letter dated 12‑2‑1993 addressed to this Court and his two statements made on 1‑' )‑1993 riled in Court wherein he expressed, his high esteem for the Court and deep regrets for the embarrassment caused to it, coupled with disclosures made by Mr. Wasim Sajjad about the views of the respondent in his statement before the Court, provide a mitigating circumstance. This Court in the case of Inayat Khan v. M. Anwar, Bar‑at‑Law reported in PLD 1976 SC 354 at page 368 inter alia observed: ‑ "While, in a liveliest and democratic society, the need and value of a free and informed discussion of issues of public importance cannot be denied, it is also in the public interest that the administration of justice must be kept free from all extraneous influence so that public confidence in the independence and irnpartia.Kty of the Courts is not impaired and litigants re not deterred in any manner from seeking the enforcement of their legal rights through the Courts of justice, nor is the determination of their causes pr judged or prejudiced by public utterances and newspaper publications. It is, therefore, imperative that a balance should be struck between these competing demands of public interest and public policy. It seems to the Court that this balance is adequately ensured by allowing fair comment made in good faith and in the public interest on the working of the Courts or any of their final decisions after the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, if any." In the context of the present case, it must be remembered that in October, 1988, the public opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of general elections being held on party basis wherein the parties who had boycotted the general elections could participate, so that democracy could be fully restored in the country. This view was being expressed by almost all important political personalities. In fact, the above sentiments were fully in consonance with view .of this Court, as expressed in a series of decisions rendered during this period. Under these decisions all legal impediments in the holding and conduct of fair and free elections were being struck down and removed. Thus, the registration clause in the Political Parties Act was declared void ‑‑ (Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 416). The political parties were held entitled to allocation of a party symbol to enable them to effectively participate in the process of elections by judgment rendered on 2‑10‑1988 (PLD 1989 SC 66). The same views are reflected and reiterated in the judgement delivered in the case of Haji Saifullah, decided on 5‑10‑1988. In my view, therefore, the statements made by the, respondent all along that he was keen to see that the elections be allowed to be held on the scheduled dates can be accepted to have been made in public, interest and in good faith. The said statements could not and did not influence the court of justice in the highest degree. Hence, his statement made on 4‑2‑1993 during 'Meet the Press Programme' that he was responsible for ensuring 'hat elections were held on the scheduled dates may be reflective of his own thinking on this issue, but did not have any influence whatever on the decision of the Court or on the due administration of justice. During the course of the proceedings, the Court made it amply clear that it disapproves the gratuitous remarks made during the 'Meet the Press Programme' of 4th February, 1993. However, taking into account the expression of his deep regret a, he embarrassment caused to the Court and the expression of the high esteem in which he holds the Court, it is neither expedient nor proper to continue these proceedings. 1, therefore, agree with the learned Chief Justice, that the contempt proceedings should be dropped, but would caution the respondent to i be very careful‑ in his utterances in relation to this Court and, the proceedings taking place before it, in future. In the end, I would like to thank the learned, counsel of the parties for their cooperation and valuable assistance. Some disappointment was expressed at the performance of the learned Attorney‑General at some early stage. His performance during the proceedings in Court, however, has been quite admirable and dissipated completely the earlier impression. Indeed the impartiality and ability exhibited by him. is commendable. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑For reasons to be recorded later, I have reached the conclusion that the charge of contempt of Court has been established against the respondent 'and accordingly, I convict him for committing contempt of this Court. However, on the question of sentence, I agr ee with the learned Attorncy‑General that there are mitigating circumstances in the case and keeping in view the same, I feel that a severe reprimand to respondent would serve the ends of justice in this case. It is ordered accordingly. ORDER OF THE COURT By majority the proceeding against the respondent is concluded and he is discharged in view of the mitigating circumstances of the case though found guilty of contempt of this Court. 345 ref ' Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan and others PLD 1985 SC M.B.A./S‑738/S order accordingly