Contempt of Court proceedings

2025 PCrLJ 1994 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3 & 7Contempt of Court proceedingsScope

Contempt petition had been filed by the petitioner seeking initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents on account of the use of derogatory language in their written statements, particularly the phrase "abuse of process of Court" which was used in reference to the Supreme Court's final decision in a case

Held: Respondent No.1 (Advocate General) holding a constitutional office as such, was expected to exhibit the highest standard of professionalism and respect towards judicial institutions

Leaving aside the matter of contempt of this Court, the written statement filed by said respondent before the High Court contained language unbecoming of his office, including the use of the word "rascal" in reference to the petitioner

Such conduct was entirely unacceptable, particularly from an officer of his stature

Similarly, respondent No.2, being an officer of the Court, was duty-bound to uphold and enhance the dignity of the Court rather than engaging in conduct that undermined it

Language employed in his written statement was not only inappropriate but also amounted to a direct affront to the authority of this Court

Thus, the conduct of the respondents warranted the imposition of the maximum penalty under contempt of Court laws

However, while showing grace and in consideration of their unconditional apologies and expressions of remorse, Supreme Court observed that it would be appropriate to accept their apologies and drop the contempt proceedings with a warning to be careful in future.

2023 PLD 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3 & 4Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204Contempt of Court proceedingsDeath of contemnerEffect

Petitioner invoked contempt of Court proceedings against the official who allegedly did not comply with the order passed by High Court

Official against whom contempt proceedings were initiated had already died prior to initiation of the order which was allegedly violated

Validity

Cause of action was personal to deceased and did not survive after his death

In the cases of commission of contempt of Court by a person through any personal disobedience or action resulting in scandalizing the Court, tort, defamation, etc., such personal action dies with the person

Court has suo motu powers to initiate contempt of Court proceedings against the alleged contemner

Deceased was impleaded as only respondent in the petition for contempt of Court and no other respondent had been impleaded, therefore, the petition which was filed against dead person was void ab initio as a whole and not in piecemeal and hence nullity in the eye of law

High Court declined substitution of deceased respondent by impleading another incumbent

Fresh petition could be maintainable as cause of action relating to contempt of Court against the person holding the post of Medical Superintendent was still subsisting

High Court did not initiate suo motu proceedings for contempt of Court against incumbent of the office of Medical Superintendent for the reason that petitioner failed to point out who was holding the position and whether the matter of petitioner was placed before that official for decision in terms of order passed by High Court

Petitioner also failed to clarify as to whether the matter was placed before the incumbent for consideration and was decided or not

Petitioner himself was not sure as to which specific person had to decide his representation

Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2015 PLD 1 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 51Azad Jammu and Kashmir Contempt of Court Act (XXVII of 1993), Ss.3 & 7AdvocateSuspension of licenseContempt of court proceedingsScandalizing the superior judiciaryBringing authority of courts and administration of law into disreputeApplication for unconditional apology at the earliest opportunityExpressing regretEffectRevival of license and discharge of contempt proceedings

Applicant, who was an advocate, wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court, wherein he made certain allegations against Judges of the High Court and Shariat Court

After issuance of show cause notice applicant-advocate was found guilty of scandalizing the superior judiciary and bringing authority of courts and administration of law into disrepute

Applicant's license of advocacy was suspended and separate contempt proceedings were also initiated against him

Subsequently applicant moved an application to withdraw the letter he had written and tendered unconditional apology and expressed regret for his act

Held, that applicant had tendered unqualified and unconditional apology and had thrown himself at the mercy of the court

Applicant did not try to justify the contents of the letter

Unqualified apology tendered by applicant was endorsed by the President, Senior Vice President and General Secretary of District Bar Association, to which the applicant belonged

Conduct of applicant was seriously condemned by the said representatives of the District Bar Association and they also guaranteed that applicant would not repeat the alleged offence in future

Unqualified apology tendered by applicant was accepted and order of suspension of his license along with contempt notice were discharged

However, High Court observed that applicant should be careful about dignity of courts, that he should act prudently in future and should not indulge in acts which were unbecoming of an officer or of the court, otherwise law would take its own course

Application was allowed accordingly.

2014 PLD 174 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 3Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204(2)Contempt of Court proceedingsScope

Court very sparingly and in extreme cases invoked its powers to proceed for Contempt of Court.

2013 SCMR 346 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 3Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204(2)Contempt of Court proceedingsPurpose

Purpose of proceedings for Contempt of Court was not the protection of a Judge personally but in fact it was for the protection of the public at large, whose rights and interests would obviously be affected, if by any act or omission of any party, the authority of the court was lowered and the confidence of the people in the administration of justice was diminished or weakened.