Contempt proceedings

Grievance of the petitioner, seeking contempt proceedings against officials of Anti-Corruption Establishment/ respondents, was that no legal proceedings had been conducted in light of previous order passed in constitutional petition filed by him

Held: Record (including report/reply submitted on behalf of respondents) revealed that subject-matter was referred by FIA to Anti-Corruption Establishment, then same was referred to the concerned Regional Directorate of Anti-Corruption Establishment for necessary action as per law; inquiry was initiated and entrusted to a Deputy Director (Investigation), Anti-Corruption Establishment, however, the same had been finalized and consigned to the record; copy of final report in said regard had also been produced

Petitioner did not press present petition while reserving his right to avail each and every remedy for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law including moving application to the concerned authority for re-opening as well as change of inquiry

Criminal Original Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Effect of S.352, Cr.P.C., was that the place in which Election Commission held trial of the offence of contempt was deemed to be an open Court to which public generally could have access to so far as the same could conveniently contain them

Public trial was even otherwise a requirement of a fair trial pursuant to Art.10-A of the Constitution

Power to punish contempt results in a conviction and a citizen can only be convicted through the exercise of judicial power and such power is to be exercised in accordance with Art.10-A of the Constitution

Election Commission was bound to exercise its power to punish contempt under S.10 of Elections Act, 2017 and in accordance with Art.10-A of the Constitution

Petitioner was entitled to a fair trial under Art.10-A of the Constitution, which entailed public hearing

Orders in question deprived the petitioner of his Constitutional right to a fair trial by calling a jail trial of alleged contempt against him without cogent reason and without ensuring that jail trial was nevertheless an open trial and as such the proceedings were ultra vires the Constitution and illegal

Orders in question were without lawful authority and superstructure built upon them must fall to the ground

High Court set aside orders and notification in question as the same were without lawful authority

Contempt proceedings / trial conducted in jail against petitioner did not constitute an open trial; it stood vitiated as it was in violation of Art.10-A of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Supreme Court initiated contempt proceedings against contemner/ officer of Supreme Court office who fixed case in question before Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court on the basis of order passed by Committee of Supreme Court constituted under section 2 of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023

Validity

Contemner/ officer of Supreme Court office did not deliberately avoid fixation of cases before the Bench as directed in the Court order

There was no evidence to suggest that contemner/officer of Supreme Court office had any personal interest in the matter or had connived with any of the parties to the case nor did he act with intention of causing damage to any of the parties to the case

There was no indication of mala fide intent in the actions of contemner/officer of Supreme Court office

In absence of any such factors or elements of contumacy, conduct of contemner/officer of Supreme Court office could not be considered contumacious nor it suffered from mala fides requiring contempt proceedings against him

Supreme Court withdrew show cause notice issued against contemner/officer of Supreme Court office

Contempt proceedings were withdrawn.

Officer of Supreme Court fixed case in question before Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court on the basis of order passed by Committee of Supreme Court constituted under section 2 of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, against the order passed by Bench of Supreme Court during Court proceedings

Validity

All Executive and Judicial authorities throughout Pakistan, including officers within the establishment of Supreme Court, are required under Article 190 of the Constitution to act in aid of Supreme Court, meaning in aid of its judicial orders, not administrative orders

Every citizen, including officers within the establishment of Supreme Court, are bound under Article 5 of the Constitution to obey the Constitution and law

Supreme Court issued notices to Attorney General to conduct contempt proceedings against officer of Supreme Court, as well as to assist Supreme Court on questions of law

Proceedings adjourned.

Petitioner / applicant sought his appointment against quota under son of employee scheme for the post of Constable in police

Grievance of petitioner / applicant was that despite being declared fit in physical test and also succeeding in the written test, he was not selected

Division Bench of High Court in exercise of Constitution jurisdiction directed the authorities to appoint petitioner / applicant

Contempt proceedings were initiated by petitioner / applicant against alleged contemnors for deliberately violating and defying the order passed by Division Bench of High Court

Validity

Division Bench of High Court converted contempt application into an application under S. 151, C.P.C. and directed respondents to appoint petitioner / applicant to the post of Constable or to any other equivalent post

Division Bench of High Court expected that authorities would issue appointment letter to petitioner / applicant expeditiously, as he had been running from pillar to post for his right for a long time

Division Bench of High Court clarified that if the needful was not done within the stipulated period, it would be deemed to be defiance of Court's order within the meaning of Art. 204 of the Constitution

Application allowed accordingly.

Contempt proceedings are between contemnor and Court which provide no vested right to any aggrieved person to press for enforcement of contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnor.

Common feature in all three types of contempt is that the Court may initiate contempt proceedings suo motu or on information provided by an informer

Criminal contempt brings moral authority of Court into disrepute and encompasses a host of situations which the Court by exercising its contempt jurisdiction is required to deal effectively to ensure due process regarding all aspects of free and fair trial as ordained by applicable law without causing prejudice to rights and interests of all stakeholders

Judicial contempt aims to protect, preserve and uphold the authority, sanction and dignity of Court

Civil contempt is conspicuously different and is deliberately expanded in terms of its manifestations and ramifications

This is the only type of contempt that speaks of an "order" and includes the expression "interim" or "final", a "judgment" or "decree", or a "writ or order" passed in constitutional jurisdiction within the contemplation of overarching term "order" employed in S. 2(a) of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003

Civil contempt is expanded to include "an undertaking given to and recorded by a Court" and "the process of the Court" itself as contained in S. 2(a)(iii) & (iv) of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003

Such conscious attempt on the part of the Legislature to expand power in cases of civil contempt is fortified by unflinching declaration under S. 12(2) of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, to the effect that provisions relating to civil contempt are in addition to and not in derogation of power of Court under any law for the time being in force to enforce its orders, judgments or decrees

Civil contempt can only be initiated if there is an order which is duly served upon alleged contemnor and there is "willful" and "mala fide" non-compliance of such order by contemnor who is a party in proceedings in his personal capacity.

Petitioner / Pakistan Telecommunication Company ('Company') Limited was aggrieved of order passed by Single Bench of NIRC reinstating respondent / employee and also contempt proceedings initiated for non-compliance of reinstatement order

Petitioner / company invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court as Full Bench of NIRC was not functional

Validity

High Court directed petitioner / Company to appoint an authorized person who would appear and assist and satisfy NIRC regarding not reinstating respondent, despite lapse of six years

In case of failure to satisfy as such, NIRC would be competent to take action including contempt proceedings against petitioner / Company

High Court further directed petitioner / Company to depute an authorized officer to file reinstatement letter and differential amount after recalculation of back benefits to the satisfaction of NIRC

Failure to make compliance of any of the terms so mentioned would be considered as contempt of Court, apart from any additional defiance that could take place before NIRC

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Nature of proceedings under Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, are not in strict sense a criminal trial under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, but are sui generis in nature

Purpose of such proceedings is not to wreak vengeance nor it relates to ego of a judge to punish contemnor rather to vindicate honour and dignity of Court so as to maintain and strengthen confidence of general public in judicial system and to keep justice system away from any obstructions

Law of contempt is meant to maintain efficacy of Courts of justice and to secure public confidence in administration of justice.

Dispute was with regard to appointing prosecutor in contempt proceedings from Advocate General's office instead of from Attorney General's office

Validity

Contempt proceedings were not included under S. 4A Central Law Officers Ordinance, 1970

Such proceedings were a different category of proceedings, whereby prosecutor was usually a persona designata and it was a deliberate omission by the Legislature

Provisions of Central Law Officers Ordinance, 1970 only related to Federal Law Officers and did not cover position of Provincial Law Officers in such matters

Original proceedings commenced before Family Court at 'K', petition was moved before High Court, cause of original action arose in "K"

Allegedly contempt was made before High Court of Sindh, therefore, prosecutor was to be Advocate General of Sindh or a person designated by him from his office

High Court declined to interfere in the order appointing prosecutor from office of Advocate General's office as there was no error floating on the face of record

High Court directed Advocate General or a person designated by him, amongst the A.A.G's. working in his office, to prosecute contempt proceedings, who would provide all necessary documents to alleged contemnor

Review petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Respondent/contemnor was a politician who during a public speech passed derogatory remarks against a Judge conducting a criminal trial

High Court issued contempt notice to respondent/contemnor who tendered his apology to the words used by him during public speech

Validity

Question of tendering an apology becomes relevant when Court upon conclusion of proceedings was satisfied that charge of contempt had been established, and no case was made out to extend benefit of doubt

Satisfaction of Court was the foundational principle in such regard

Apology might not be expressly tendered, but Court could be satisfied that its bona fides stood impliedly established by conduct or written submissions of contemnor

Satisfaction of Court could not be restricted to any particular mode, form or nature of an apology

Court was to be satisfied that contemnor regretfully acknowledged having committed contempt and such acknowledgment must appeared to be bona fide

Court could be satisfied, even if an unconditional apology was not been tendered

Speech of respondent/contemnor was not followed by any other action and only actus reus was speech in question

High Court declined to refuse extending benefit of doubt to respondent/contemnor

Conduct of respondent/contemnor unambiguously manifested acurative effect

High Court did not dispute bona fide of regretful acknowledgment on the part of respondent/contemnor manifested through his conduct, tendering appearances before High Court explaining his stance and reiterating it by executing affidavit in apology

Despite extending benefit of doubt, the apology tended by respondent/contemnor was bona fide and High Court did not form a different opinion

High court discharged respondent/contemnor from contempt notice

Contempt proceedings were withdrawn in circumstances.

Statue expressly provides that, in case of contempt, truth is a valid defence.

In contempt proceedings matter of placing onus is totally different from a case under criminal law, which presumes innocence of accused and places burden on prosecution to establish charge against latter beyond a reasonable doubt

Onus is entirely upon person charged, to prove his innocence.

Respondent/contemnor was a politician who during a public speech passed derogatory remarks against a Judge conducting a criminal trial

High Court issued contempt notice to respondent/contemnor who tendered his apology to the words used by him during public speech

Validity

Mere fact that alleged contemnor seeks to explain context of actions that has attracted contempt proceedings is not a basis to conclude that apology accompanying such explanation and defence must be rejected for lacking bona fides

While provision of S. 5(2) of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, provides that an apology may be tendered at any stage

Apology tendered at fag end of judicial proceedings in a contempt matter, where prospect of conviction has crystallized would be deemed to be an afterthought and not an expression of sincere and genuine remorse

To impose a requirement of furnishing unconditional apology or an apology without any explanation or justification would not sit well within the explicit text of S. 5(2) of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 and explanation provided therein.

Taking action against contemnor or accepting an apology is entirely a matter between alleged contemnor and Court and subject to the latter's satisfaction.

Principle of extending benefit of doubt forms an integral part of contempt proceedings.

Scope

Applicability

Attributes of grace, magnanimity and forgiveness, inherent to status of Court are a safeguard against conviction and sentencing for contempt when curative effect of proceedings becomes obvious.

High Court had issued direction for sanction of qualification allowance at the rate of Rs.5000/- in favour of appellants

Nowhere in the application was alleged that authorities had violated the direction of High Court or had not sanctioned the qualification allowance at the rate of Rs.5000/- rather the appellants had approached the court for issuance of direction to sanction the qualification allowance at the rate of Rs.10,000/-, as sanctioned in favour of some others

Claim of discrimination could not be resolved in contempt proceedings rather if the appellants had any grievance, they could approach the proper forum

High Court had rightly declined to entertain the contempt application

Appeal was dismissed.

Appellant impugned orders of Single Judge High Court whereby contempt of court petition filed by appellant was dismissed by Single Judge High Court on the ground that the order allegedly not complied with by alleged contemnors had become infructuous after appeals filed by the alleged contemnors before Supreme Court were withdrawn by them with permission to make fresh applications to appropriate authority by fulfilling legal conditions

Validity

Alleged contemnors / respondents had availed remedy in terms of orders of Supreme Court and therefore order passed originally by Single Judge High Court had merged with order of Supreme Court whereby respondents had been permitted to file fresh applications and such remedy was availed by respondents

High Court had rightly observed in impugned order that the order on which basis contempt proceedings were sought had become infructuous

Presumption was attached to orders of superior courts that were within jurisdiction and any order of High Court contrary to order / judgment of Supreme Court could not be implemented by invoking power of contempt of court

Court itself was to see if its order was implemented or not and where court did not intend to proceed in terms of contempt for non-compliance / violation of its order for reasons of its own, in exercise of discretionary power, then any other court, much less an appellate court, could not interfere to direct such court to proceed with contempt proceedings

Single Judge High Court had refused to entertain the matter in light of order of Supreme Court and there was no reason to interfere in such order, which did not suffer from any illegality

Intra-court appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner invoked contempt proceedings against Advocate General of Sindh for non-compliance of interim order passed by High Court

Plea raised by contemnor (Advocate General) was that interim order passed by High Court was finally merged into final order passed eight days later and there was no direction restraining him from exercising his powers

Validity

Contempt proceedings cannot be initiated at desire or whim of a litigating party

Before proceeding against alleged contemnor Court has to be satisfied as to whether alleged contemnor has done any act coming within the mischief of law of contempt

Contempt lies where there is deliberate act on part of contemnor which within judicial conscious of the Court itself falls within the meaning of a contempt

Interim order always merges in final order and does not survive after final verdict has been announced in the matter

Once name of winning candidate was declared and notified in gazette, any objection to Election could not be gone into by High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction

Parties were left to seek remedy at the proper forum

Petitioner was at liberty to file proper application before Returning Officer for recounting of votes

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Where a decree and/or order of the Supreme Court was to be implemented, the appropriate remedy would lie in execution proceedings and not contempt proceedings unless decree holder clearly set down relevant facts constituting contempt of court, in addition to being able to demonstrate that the matter complained of was "willful disobedience" of any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ, other process of the Court

Contempt would only lie under the circumstances enumerated under Art. 204 of the Constitution

Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 did not contain any provisions for execution of the orders, judgments, or decrees of the Court in the contempt jurisdiction

Supreme Court observed that Courts should be careful in matters of contempt and must refrain to come to the aid of a party who, in the first instance, avoided or refused to avail the efficacious and effective legal remedy to seek execution or order, judgment, and decree of the Trial Court in the manner provided under the C.P.C.

Complainant was aggrieved of order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace whereby he refused to initiate proceedings under S. 476, Cr.P.C. against police officials for filing false report in court

Validity

Only those proceedings were covered under S. 476, Cr.P.C. which were carried out in any court

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace being not a court under S. 476, Cr.P.C. and any statement, report submitted before Ex-Officio Justice of Peace could not be considered to be submitted before court under Cr.P.C.

When Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was not a court no proceedings under S. 476, Cr.P.C. could be carried out if a party had felt that any misinformation was submitted before Ex-Officio Justice of Peace in proceedings under Ss. 22-A & 22-B Cr.P.C.

High Court declined to interfere in matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Plea raised by authorities was that son of petitioner was offered appointment in compliance of order passed by High Court but he refused to accept the same

Validity

Department could not circumvent law to make recruitment to post on deceased quota by invoking R.11-A of Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 more particularly without resorting to proviso of R. 11-A of Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974

Explanation offered by the department was tenable under law as son of petitioner was offered post in compliance of order passed by the High Court but same was refused by son of petitioner

Explanation offered by the department was substantial compliance of order of the High Court in letter and spirit

High Court declined to proceed with contempt proceedings as no case was made out

Applications were dismissed in circumstances.

Employers contended that employees had already been terminated before they approached the Court on the pretext of regularization of their services

Employees contended that their services were terminated in violation of stay order passed by the Labour Court

Record revealed that Labour Court had not specifically extended its previous stay order while employees filed contempt petition on the basis of stay order passed by the Labour Court

During the proceedings of contempt petition Labour Court issued order to the employers to take the employees on duty

Employees had challenged termination order in their grievance petition after a week when service of employees was terminated

Grievance petition was still pending before the Labour Court for recording of evidence of the parties, therefore, Labour Court had travelled beyond its jurisdiction while granting the main relief to the employees prior to dilating upon the matter with the evidence of the parties

Object of passing interlocutory order of status quo was to maintain situation obtaining on that date when party concerned had approached the Court and not to create new situation

Court could not grant interlocutory relief of the nature which would amount to allowing main case without trial

Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Labour Court to decide the illegality of termination order of the employees in the light of evidence of the parties

Revision petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner, who was a certified disabled person, for alleged defiance of order passed by High Court in Constitutional petition whereby NADRA was ordered to implement Regln. 13 of the National Database and Registration Authority (Application for National Identity Card) Regulations, 2002, with regard to obtaining the impression of petitioner, who had amputated hands, on the CNIC of the petitioner

Validity

Under Notification No. 8/37/2016-NADRA dated 21.07.2017, Regln. 13 of the National Database and Registration Authority (Application for National Identity Card) Regulations, 2002 had been amended and rationalized and assurance was obtained from NADRA that the petitioner and other persons with similar disabilities would not suffer due to any lapse on part of NADRA

Contempt proceedings were disposed of, in circumstances.

Labour Appellate Tribunal remitted the matter to the Labour Court for decision of question of jurisdiction afresh but in the meanwhile employer was directed not to terminate the services of workers till decision of the case

Employees filed an application for initiating contempt proceedings against the employer wherein show cause notice was issued

Validity

When forum in the Labour hierarchy was not vested with the jurisdiction, direction of Labour Appellate Tribunal would be without lawful authority

Disobedience or non-implementation of judgment of Labour Appellate Tribunal being per incuriam and without jurisdiction would not constitute contempt of person/establishment even if found guilty

Such disobedience or non-implementation could not be visited with contempt punishment

Order of Labour Appellate Tribunal had become redundant

Contempt proceedings initiated on the basis of a wrong order would amount to abuse of process of court

Contempt proceedings pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal were ordered to be quashed

Employees could raise their voice before the proper forum wherein they could make a claim for the alleged arrears of wages

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner sought initiating contempt proceedings against authorities on the ground that direction passed by High Court had not been complied

Validity

Held, before initiating contempt proceedings, it was necessary that Court was to be satisfied as to whether act of alleged contemnor had come within the mischief of law or it amounted to interference with administration of justice

Contempt proceedings could not be initiated unless it was shown that alleged contemnors acted recklessly and with open motive of disrespect to the authority of Court

Directions in the order passed by the High Court were followed by authorities by putting plot in question for auction

Delay in putting said plot for auction was not with open motive to disrespect authority of Court

If action of public functionaries was not tainted with mala fide it could not be termed as contemptuous

High Court withdrew contempt notices as orders in question had been complied with by the authorities

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Right of appeal was a substantive right, and could only be availed, if it was clearly and expressly provided under the enabling statute

Legislature, while enacting S.19 of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, had provided only the forum of appeal, without specifying the persons, who had the right of appeal

Such omission on the part of the legislature was meaningful

Person, convicted of the offence of contempt of court, could not be rendered remediless, he, and none other could move the appellate forum in appeal against his conviction

If the contempt petition was dismissed, the proceedings were terminated; and not even the State or petitioner could agitate the same in appeal.

Accused was practising lawyer and it was alleged that he had interrupted Trial Court during Court proceedings, in presence of three other lawyers

Trial Court convicted accused without recording statement of any witness and sentenced him to fine

Validity

Trial Court passed judgment in hasty manner without recording statements of even lawyers present in Court

No proper time even till rising of Court was granted to accused to present his defence and explain circumstances as well as reasons behind his action

Benefit of doubt went in favour of accused as neither witnesses were recorded nor enough time was granted to accused to file reply to show cause notice and put up his defence and required procedure was not adopted

High Court extended benefit of doubt to accused and acquitted him of the charge, as exact action of interruption or insult was not explained as required under S. 481(2), Cr.P.C.

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Ordinarily if temporary injunction issued by court is violated, action as contemplated in O.XXXIX, R.2(3)(4) C.P.C. can be resorted to

Before punishing a person for disobedience of temporary injunction or breach of any term thereof, the court has to find that in fact such disobedience or breach has taken place and for that purpose inquiry is needed.