2012 PLP 519 (SCMR)
Syed YOUSAF RAZA GILLANI, PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN — Appellant Versus ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 519 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Mian Shakirullah Jan, Jawwad S. Khawaja, Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Khilji Arif Hussain, Tariq Parvez, Mian Saqib Nisar and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | Syed YOUSAF RAZA GILLANI, PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN — Appellant Versus ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Contempt of Court Ordinance (V of 2003) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 519 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Contempt of Court Ordinance (V of 2003) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 519 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Mian Shakirullah Jan, Jawwad S. Khawaja, Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Khilji Arif Hussain, Tariq Parvez, Mian Saqib Nisar and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 519 (SCMR) (Syed YOUSAF RAZA GILLANI, PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN — Appellant Versus ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aitzaz Ahsan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th February, 2012.
- IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---Attention of Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, who is instructed by Mr. M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record was drawn towards the following questions of law, which according to them arise for consideration in the instant appeal:--
- They were further apprised that the questions reproduced hereinabove were phrased in such a manner, which should not have been recorded by the appellant who is the incumbent Prime Minister of Pakistan and is supposed to possess highest moral values being the constitutional head and the impression is being created as if the judiciary as a whole is being influenced on account of alleged favourable actions done by him for its members by performing the acts noted therein. Therefore it is tantamount not to embarrass the Court, but the appellant himself as he ought not to have claimed relief or presumed that some relief should be given to him for such action. The learned counsel appearing on his behalf, however, stated that these questions were framed with a view to show respect and deference to the judiciary and in no manner it should be considered that perhaps the judiciary is being influenced for any purpose. However, under instructions received from the learned Advocate-on-Record of the appellant, he stated at the bar that the above questions be deleted from the pleadings.
- 2. On having considered the request of the learned counsel and also considering that the above questions are being required to be deleted under instructions from the appellant through his Advocate-on-Record, we accede to the request so made. Consequently, questions Nos.45, 51 and 52 are deleted from the pleadings.
- 3. Similarly, in the CMAs wherever these questions have been repeated shall be deemed to have been deleted under instructions received by the learned counsel for the appellant through his Advocate-on-Record.
- 4. Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court is continuing with his arguments, which are not likely to be concluded in the course of the day. It is already 4-00 p.m., as such the case is adjourned for 10-2-2012.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 2-2-2012 passed by this Court in Criminal Original No.6 of 2012).
S. 19
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.204
Deletion of questions of law raised in pleadings of intra court appeal
Questions in issue in the appeal were phrased in such a manner, which should have not been recorded by the appellant, who being the Prime Minister was supposed to possess highest moral values being the constitutional head and the impression was being created as if the judiciary as a whole was being influenced, on account of alleged favourable actions done by the appellant, for its Members by performing the acts noted in the questions
Said questions were not tantamount to embarrass the court, but the appellant himself as he ought not to have claimed relief or presumed that some relief should be given to him for actions noted in the questions
Contention of appellant (Prime Minister) was that questions in issue were framed with a view to show respect and deference to the judiciary and they should not be considered to be influencing the judiciary for any purpose
Counsel for the appellant, however under instructions, made request to the Court to delete the said questions from the pleadings and the Supreme Court acceded to the same
Questions were deleted from pleadings of intra court appeal accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
Attention of Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, who is instructed by Mr. M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record was drawn towards the following questions of law, which according to them arise for consideration in the instant appeal:-- Questions 45, 51 and 52 (45) Could a Prime Minister who undid the draconian action of a military dictator (of arresting judges of the superior courts, including the Hon'ble Chief Justice and his children) even before he had taken oath as Prime Minister, be presumed to have contemplated committing contempt? (51) Whether it is not ironic that a Prime Minister who released the detained judges should be sent to prison, or sentenced otherwise, by the judiciary? (52) Can the duly elected Prime Minister of Pakistan not even expect to be dealt with in a manner similar to real, actual and blatant contemners of the variety that: Sacked the superior courts and their judges in November 2007; Expressly and brazenly flouted the historic order dated November 3, 2007; Arrested the judges of the superior courts along with their children members of their families, detained and continued to hold them captive for prolonged periods; Promulgated and/or applied and administered anti-judiciary laws such as the PCO and the Judges, Oath of Office Order; Unleashed brutal State violence on Members of the Bar (as officers of the Court) and other citizens of Pakistan seeking the reinstatement of the sacked judges; But have yet to be formally charged and indicted for their patently criminal actions? They were further apprised that the questions reproduced hereinabove were phrased in such a manner, which should not have been recorded by the appellant who is the incumbent Prime Minister of Pakistan and is supposed to possess highest moral values being the constitutional head and the impression is being created as if the judiciary as a whole is being influenced on account of alleged favourable actions done by him for its members by performing the acts noted therein. Therefore it is tantamount not to embarrass the Court, but the appellant himself as he ought not to have claimed relief or presumed that some relief should be given to him for such action. The learned counsel appearing on his behalf, however, stated that these questions were framed with a view to show respect and deference to the judiciary and in no manner it should be considered that perhaps the judiciary is being influenced for any purpose. However, under instructions received from the learned Advocate-on-Record of the appellant, he stated at the bar that the above questions be deleted from the pleadings.
2. On having considered the request of the learned counsel and also considering that the above questions are being required to be deleted under instructions from the appellant through his Advocate-on-Record, we accede to the request so made. Consequently, questions Nos.45, 51 and 52 are deleted from the pleadings.
3. Similarly, in the CMAs wherever these questions have been repeated shall be deemed to have been deleted under instructions received by the learned counsel for the appellant through his Advocate-on-Record.
4. Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court is continuing with his arguments, which are not likely to be concluded in the course of the day. It is already 4-00 p.m., as such the case is adjourned for 10-2-2012. M.W.A./Y-1/SC Order accordingly.