Unconditional apology

Court issued notice of contempt of Court to respondent, who was President of a political party, on making derogatory remarks against judiciary

Validity

Society in general and legal fraternity in particular expects magnanimity from a Judge in cases where a contemner seeks unconditional apology and Courts have been generous in such cases

It was not only a matter of scornful statement ridiculing Chief Justice of High Court and bringing him to disrepute but the respondent had threatened the Chief Justice with dire consequences notwithstanding that High Court had always strived to uphold the ends of justice without discrimination

Respondent and his lawyers assured that respondent had not consciously made the utterances and that he would make public apology in a manner that respect and honour of the Chief Justice and the judiciary would be emphasized

High Court advised that solemnity of respondent would be believed if he submitted written apology and also expressed his regret publicly through press conference for wide publicity

High Court accepted written apology submitted by respondent and in consideration of extending obeisance/mark of respect to the nanawatey members as a corollary, relieved him of the matter

Contempt petition was disposed of accordingly.

Respondent (Prime Minister) appeared before the Court and admitted the contents of the clippings of the newspaper in open Court

Prima facie in his statement contemptuous wording had been used which was against the prestige and independence of the judiciary

Respondent tendered unconditional apology and placed himself at the mercy of the Court

As the contemner himself admitted remarks pertaining to contempt of Court and he also denied to submit any other objection or reply in response of show cause notice, hence, it could safely be held that his act came within the ambit of contempt of Court under Art. 45 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974

Article 45 was fully attracted to the speeches made by the respondent-contemnor as he has made derogatory statement against superior judiciary in public meeting, attempted to spoil the prestige of the superior judiciary and also flexed his muscles to prejudice the determination of the cases pending before the High Court (AJ&K)

As the contemnor has tendered unconditional apology before the Court, hence, opting to take a lenient view, the High Court (AJ&K) punished him till rising of the Court under Art. 45 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, and directed that as the respondent had been punished he stood disqualified for being elected or chosen or for being a Member of Legislative Assembly or to hold any public office for two years from the date of present order.

Section 5(2) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 dealing with submission of apology by a person accused of having committed Contempt of Court did not envisage an automatic acceptance of the apology by the court but made its acceptance subject to the court's satisfaction about its bona fide.

Allegation against the host of the television show and his guests ("respondents") was that during the show the name of a High Court judge was repeated time and again with mala fide intention, ulterior motives and in order to mislead the viewers, and that a unilateral opinion without verification was expressed and an attempt was made to malign the superior Courts of the country

Respondents/alleged contemnors had admitted the allegations and tendered unconditional apology, by stating that they would remain careful in future, therefore, the High Court by showing grace and kindness discharged the contempt notices and dropped the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents

High Court observed that it was the prime responsibility of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority ("PEMRA") to play its role by keeping a watchful eye on the programmes, especially talk shows, which were being telecast on the news channels on daily basis, and instead of being awoken by the Courts or any other institute, PEMRA itself was required to act in accordance with their rules and regulations to avoid violation of terms and conditions contained in the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and Electronic Media (Programmes and Advertisement), Code of Conduct, 2015 so as to make sure that violation of provisions of Art. 19 of the Constitution had not been made by any of the news channels

Contempt proceedings were discharged accordingly.

Contempt notice was issued to a politician who conducted press conference wherein he levelled the contemptuous allegations

Notice was also issued to television channels and Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority for airing contemptuous allegations against Chief Justice of High Court

Contemnors submitted their unconditional apology on receipt of contempt notices

Validity

High Court was satisfied with unconditional and unqualified apology of contemnors tendered at the first opportunity, accepted the apology and warned the contemnors to remain careful and to act prudently in future

High Court directed the press and electronic media as well as Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, who failed to restrict derogatory conference while airing and publishing the same, not to cross their limits under the garb of 'freedom of speech'

High Court observed that Media should exercise fundamental right of freedom of speech within the ambit of ethos and values of Pakistan and that emancipation from the bondage of the soil was no freedom for the tree

Unconditional apology of the contemnors was accepted and contempt notices were withdrawn.

Unconditional apology was tendered by contemnor in Court through his affidavit, which showed his repentance and remorse in the sincerest manner and merited to be accepted

High Court warned the contemnor to remain careful in future and order issuing notice for contempt of Court was recalled in circumstances.

Both respondents had wilfully contumaciously acted in disobedience of the direction passed by Supreme Appellate Court and acted in order to obstruct the process of justice, to lower the honour and dignity of the court

Both said officials colluded to frustrate the order passed by the court which was tantamount to contempt of court

Act of both said persons seemed to be deliberate and intentional

Said officials tendered unconditional apology before the Supreme Appellate Court and showed their remorse and compunction; they assured the court that in future, they would remain careful with regard to the cases of their department pending before the courts

Unconditional apology tendered by both the officials seemed to be genuine and from core of their hearts

No further action was required in the matter and show-cause notices issued were discharged by the Supreme Appellate Court.