Contempt of Supreme Court

2019 SCMR 542 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3 & 5Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 63(1)(g) & 204(2)Contempt of Supreme CourtAbusive language used against the Supreme Court and its judges in public speechesApology by contemnorLack of remorse, sincerity and bona fides in apology

Appellant-contemnor, who was a Minister at the relevant time, was convicted under Ss. 3 & 5 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 ('the Ordinance') and was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court with a fine of Rs.100,000, and he was also disqualified under Art. 63(1)(g) from being a member of Parliament for a period of five years

Offending words uttered by the contemnor in his speeches were prejudicial to the integrity and independence of the judiciary of the country and detrimental to the safe administration of justice besides tending to bring the Supreme Court and its judges into disrespect and ridicule

Offending words were used by the contemnor in speeches that were delivered soon after the then Prime Minister, who belonged to the same ruling party as the contemnor, was disqualified by the Supreme Court

In order to show their allegiance with the disqualified Prime Minister, some members of his political party, including the contemnor, started a campaign of maligning the Office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and other Judges in public gatherings and on electronic media

Contemnor deliberately and intentionally, in such background, through the stated utterances, attacked the integrity and independence of the judiciary to please and support his leader with the sole intent to ridicule and lower the respect and to shake the confidence of people at large from the safe administration of justice

In such circumstance, the utterance made by the contemnor could by no stretch of imagination be termed as bona fide or considered as something highlighting a genuine issue to earn him leniency in his punishment

Contemnor throughout the contempt proceedings had been trying to justify his offending statement by taking different pleas and even the apology was tendered in case his justification with regard to the offending statement was not accepted

Apology tendered neither contained genuine remorse nor sincerity and it was being used by the contemnor as a fall back to get out of a difficult situation that he found himself in for having used intemperate and contemptuous language against the highest Court of the country and its Judges

Contempt committed by the contemnor was so grave that the apology was not sufficient to purge the contempt

Record also reflected that the contemnor in his S. 342, Cr.P.C. statement refused examination under oath to show his bona fide and to explain what exactly he meant by his utterances

Intra-court appeal filed by contemnor was dismissed in circumstances.

2018 SCMR 1183 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 3Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204(2)Contempt of Supreme CourtAbusive language used against Judges of the Supreme CourtUnconditional apology and undertaking by contemnorEffectContempt proceedings dropped against contemnorWords and conduct of the contemnor constituted gross contempt of the Supreme Court

Contemnor had also admitted his unbecoming conduct, however, he had expressed regret and remorse about his conduct, submitted an unconditional apology and placed himself at the mercy of the Court seeking forgiveness

Such remorse prima facie appeared to be sincere

Further, the contemnor had given an assurance and undertaking that he would not give any cause of complaint of any nature in the future to the Court in respect of his conduct

Keeping in view the(old) age, mental state and health of the contemnor, and the fact that he had recently served a sentence awarded to him by the Supreme Court and also stood disqualified from holding a public office for a period of five years, the Supreme Court decided to exercise restraint, magnanimity and forbearance in the present matter

Supreme Court accepted the unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by the contemnor and dropped the proceedings for contempt of Court initiated against him

Supreme Court directed that in case of any lapse on the part of the contemnor with respect to complete and faithful adherence to the assurance and undertaking given by him in writing, he shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with law, and no leniency would be shown towards him, and that present order was being passed in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, it shall not be used or cited as a precedent for any future case.

2018 SCMR 556 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3 & 5(1)Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 63(1)(g) & 204(2)Contempt of Supreme CourtSentenceMitigating circumstancesDisqualification from membership of Parliament

Offending words publically uttered by the accused-contemnor had received wide publicity nationally as well internationally, and they amounted to a grave contempt of the Supreme Court yet there were some mitigating circumstances available warranting withholding the maximum sentence provided for the offence by the law

Accused was about sixty years of age, he was an Advocate for the last about thirty years, he had submitted an unconditional apology though belatedly, he had thrown himself at the mercy of the Court and had decided not to contest these proceedings and upon his conviction for the offence of Contempt of Court he was to be visited with a disqualification under Art. 63(1)(g) of the Constitution

Accused was convicted for the offence under S. 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, read with Art. 204(2) of the Constitution and was sentenced under S. 5(1) of the Ordinance to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days

Since the accused had been convicted and sentenced by the Supreme Court for acting in a manner prejudicial to the integrity and independence of the judiciary and for defaming and bringing the judiciary into ridicule, therefore, by virtue of Art. 63(1)(g) of the Constitution he ipso facto stood disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) for a period of five years from date of present judgment.

2018 SCMR 556 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3, 5(2) & 18Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204(2)Contempt of Supreme CourtObstructing the process of law and justiceBringing the authority of the court and administration of law into disrespect, disrepute or hatredUnconditional apology submitted belatedly after contesting contempt proceedingsEffect

Accused-contemnor delivered a speech wherein he was alleged to have threatened Judges of the Supreme Court, their families and children and Members of a Joint Investigation Team and their families and children

Offending words uttered by the accused in the speech were nothing but an effort to obstruct, interfere with and prejudice the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court and before a Joint Investigation Team working under the direct command and supervision of the Supreme Court

Words uttered by the accused in public were meant to interfere with, obstruct and prejudice the process of law, justice and the Supreme Court and were also intended to bring the authority of Supreme Court and administration of law into disrespect, disrepute or hatred within the meanings of S. 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 and Art. 204 of the Constitution

Manner in which the accused had acted on the occasion was surely prejudicial to the integrity and independence of the judiciary of the country as a whole as it had defamed and brought it into ridicule

Contempt committed by the accused was quite grave and was one which was substantially detrimental to the administration of justice besides tending to bring the Supreme Court and the Judges of the Supreme Court into disrespect and hatred

Initially the accused had contested the proceedings and his belated apology submitted after about seven months of commencement of the contempt proceedings and at the fag end of such proceedings when the evidence of the prosecution had already been completely recorded and closed spoke volumes about the apology being an afterthought

Conduct of the accused in such regard impinged upon bona fide of his apology and, thus, the same had not been found to be meriting acceptance

Supreme Court held the accused guilty of committing contempt of the Supreme Court.

2013 SCMR 461 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 204(3), 218 & 184(3)Contempt of Court Ordinance (V of 2003, S.3

Constitutional petition under Art.184(3) of the Constitution challenging the constitution of Election Commission of Pakistan

Contempt of Supreme Court

Exercise of restraint by the Supreme Court

Petitioner made uncalled for aspersions against Members of the Bench during his arguments, which prima facie tantamount to undermine its authority calling for action against the petitioner for contempt of court under Art.204(3) of the Constitution read with S.3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003

Supreme Court, however, while exercising restraint, decided not to proceed against the petitioner following the principle that jurisdiction for contempt of court had to be exercised sparingly on case to case basis.

2013 PLD 413 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 204(3), 213, 218(2)(a), (b) & 184(3)Contempt of Court Ordinance (V of 2003), S. 3

Constitutional petition under Art.184(3) of the Constitution challenging the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and Members of Election Commission of Pakistan

Contempt of Supreme Court

Exercise of restraint by the Supreme Court

Petitioner made uncalled for aspersions against members of the Bench during his arguments, which prima facie tantamount to undermine its authority calling for action against the petitioner for contempt of court under Art.204(3) of the Constitution read with S.3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003

Supreme Court, however, while exercising restraint, decided not to proceed against the petitioner following the principle that jurisdiction for contempt of court had to be exercised sparingly on case to case basis.