Contempt of Court

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.

If Trial Court considered that any disobedience to its order was committed pursuant to sections mentioned therein then the offender could be imposed a fine of Rs.200/- only after following the procedure under S.481, Cr.P.C. but if the Court had considered that more severe sentence was to be imposed then the Court should have sent the complaint to Magistrate for the purpose of trial under S.482, Cr.P.C.

Procedure prescribed in S.482, Cr.P.C. had not been followed, rather the Trial Court had directly passed conviction and sentence of imprisonment for 15 days, though the Court was not authorized under S.480, Cr.P.C. nor Trial Court had sent the complaint to Magistrate

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused as the same was nullity in the eyes of law

High Court repelled the plea of authorities that in petty offences no appeal laid as per mandate of S.413, P.P.C. because when an offender was punished under S.180, P.P.C. pursuant to S.480, Cr.P.C. then appeal against such order was provided under S.486, Cr.P.C.

High Court acquitted the accused as appeal was competent against conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Power of High Court to punish for contempt is an inherent jurisdiction and irrespective of whether such power conferred by the Constitution, constituted a fresh power or continuation of an existing power, the jurisdiction is a special one, which as such is excluded from the purview of S.1(2) Cr.P.C.

Respondents in their replies had denied any violation and claimed that they were in lawful possession of the suit property

As per report of SHO concerned no fresh construction was found at the site in question

Matter of possession was seriously disputed between the parties and was subjudice before the civil court

Contemnor cannot be punished on the ground of contempt summarily

Contempt proceedings are of a special nature and cannot be initiated or continued unless the disobedience of the order is established to be clear, deliberate, and willful

Although contempt proceedings are not bound by technical requirements of the CPC or Cr.P.C., yet the principles of natural justice and fair opportunity must be followed in letter and spirit

Power to punish for contempt is an extraordinary one and must be exercised with circumspection and only in those cases where the authority and dignity of the Court is undermined through a contumacious act

Mere allegations, assumptions or technical infractions without a conscious effort to defy the Court's command are not sufficient to attract penal consequences

Petitioner failed to establish willful disobedience of order of High Court, thus, no case of contempt of court was made out against respondents

Contempt petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Alleged contemnor had voluntarily agreed to vacate the premises where he was running an illegal restaurant, however, instead of abiding by his statement, which was recorded in an earlier order of the Supreme Court, he initiated a media propaganda campaign against the Supreme Court projecting that it was the Supreme Court which was responsible for causing the suffering of all those employed by him in the restaurant by leaving them un-employed and that the absence of his restaurant would be a great loss to all his customers

Alleged contemnor propagated this by suppressing the fact that he was running the restaurant in violation of the law and by destroying the protected National Park

Alleged contemnor prima facie had disobeyed/ disregarded the earlier order of the Supreme Court and appeared to have committed a wilful breach of the valid undertaking given to the Supreme Court by him and had acted to bring the authority of the Supreme Court and the administration of law into disrespect and disrepute, and to lower the authority of the Supreme Court and scandalizing the judges of the Court in relation to their official work

Supreme Court issued show cause notice to the alleged contemnor to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him with the directions that he should state whether he had reached out to his brother, who was the Cabinet Secretary, and had sought the issuance of the Notification regarding removal of the Chairperson of the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board and for the placement of the Wildlife Board under the Ministry of Interior/Interior Division, by removing it from the Ministry of Climate Change and Environmental Coordination.

Contemptuous and false press conferences against the Supreme Court and its Judges aired/broadcasted by television channels

Contempt of court notices issued to television channels

Unqualified apology tendered by television channels to the Supreme Court with the commitment to broadcast the apology during prime time

Expiation of the offence of contempt

Twenty-six television channels filed miscellaneous applications tendering unqualified apologies to the Court which stated that they will ensure that such mistakes are not repeated in the future

Other channels to whom (contempt) notices were issued also directly or through their respective counsel tendered a similar apology and statement

All the channels agreed to broadcast on prime time the fact that they have tendered an apology to the Supreme Court and will also broadcast certain paragraphs recorded by the Supreme Court in its order dated 28th June 2024 relating to current proceedings

In view of the unqualified apology and the undertaking with regard to the abovementioned broadcast, which would constitute expiation, the show cause notices issued by the Supreme Court to all the television channels were withdrawn, subject to the said apology and the contents of certain paragraphs of the order dated 28th June 2024 being broadcast on prime time

Supreme Court observed that media is categorized as the fourth pillar of the State and an independent media broadcasting facts and the truth is essential for democratic rule as it highlights wrongdoing, however, its credibility and effectiveness is undermined when falsehoods are broadcast; that if within the respective press/media organizations a mechanism for self-accountability is developed it will improve their standing, credibility and resultantly become more effective in drawing attention to wrongdoing, and thus help in stemming it.

Therefore, the show cause notices issued to them were withdrawn by the Supreme Court with the observation that if there was any subsequent transgression by them it may be visited upon with consequences.

Counsel representing the channels justified the broadcast of the contemptuous press conferences on the basis that (i) television channels were not responsible for the content when they broadcast what was said by another; (ii) to constitute contempt there must be mal-intent; and (iii) it was the right and duty of television channels to live broadcast all press conferences

Validity

Such explanation prima facie was not justified, and all the more so, when the two contemnors who had held the press conferences acknowledged that the same constituted contempt of court

Those operating the television channels in question had elected not to avail the opportunity provided to them to reflect, relent and, if they so considered, to apologize

During the hearing of present case it also transpired that even after the making of the contemptuous comments the television channels continued broadcasting and (later) re-broadcasting the press conference(s) and/or extracts therefrom

There was neither any retraction nor any apology was broadcast by any of the channels

Supreme Court issued show cause notices to all the 34 television channels to show cause as to why they should not be proceeded against for committing contempt of court

Supreme Court directed that the replies to the show cause notices should state (i) whether the press conferences were preceded with advertisements; (ii) whether there were any advertisements during the press conferences; (iii) whether upon the conclusion of the press conferences there were advertisements; (iv) whether they were re-broadcast; (v) whether extracts therefrom were broadcast; and (vi) the amounts received in payment for such advertisements

Supreme Court further directed that the replies to the show cause notices were to be signed by the owner (if there was one) or the largest share/interest holder (by whatever name called) and by the operational head of the television channel.

Petitioners invoked contempt of Court proceedings against respondents/ authorities for allegedly violating order passed by High Court dismissing their Constitutional petition

Validity

Judgment passed by High Court only dismissed Constitutional petition filed by respondents / authorities whereby their application under S.12(2) C.P.C. was dismissed on technical ground

Through that judgment, neither petitioners were given any right nor any directions were issued to respondents / authorities, who did not make any violation of the judgment passed by High Court

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as District Administration restrained petitioners from construction on a public road in the best interest of the public

Contempt application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellants were aggrieved of dismissal of their contempt proceedings filed against non-compliance of injunctive order passed by Court

Validity

Power relating to contempt is confined to "power to punish"

Such power is not contemplated as a mechanism for execution, enforcement or implementation of orders of Court

Alleged contemnor is subject to punishment, however, after undergoing punishment, the contemnor cannot be coerced to implement an order

Power to punish a contemnor invariably implies that all orders of Court have to be implemented otherwise contempt proceedings would follow

Power of contempt can be expanded and structured to meet changing needs and requirements of the society

Contempt jurisdiction can validly be regulated by law and subject thereto by rules made by the Court underlying the rationale that power of contempt is a serious, significant and unfettered power required to be exercised in a manner which prevents its abuse and ensures its effectiveness so as to strike a balance between the two extremes

Contempt proceedings can be initiated suo motu by Court or at the instance of any party who has status of a mere informer

Once information is laid before Court, the informer loses his further right to pursue the same

Contempt proceedings or an appeal thereagainst does not lie at the desire of a litigant party

Primary purpose of civil contempt is always vindication of dignity of Court and administration of justice but it is also an additional tool for implementation and clarification of Court orders employed in the manner and to the extent in the sole discretion of Court

Directions in contempt proceedings do not constitute contempt but their "willful disobedience" may give rise to fresh contempt and may eradicate bona fide as a defense

Appeal is only competent as of right against order of conviction or sentence but not against order refusing to convict or resulting in exoneration

Appeal is not maintainable regarding orders refusing to initiate or dropping contempt proceedings at any stage after due satisfaction of Court

Appeal is competent regarding orders passed in contempt proceedings which are inherently without jurisdiction or void or coram non judice or for multiple reasons in the discretion of Appellate Court or of the nature requiring exercise of jurisdiction in appeal

Any observations made by Court in original or appellate proceedings have no bearing or effect on the merits of any pending adjudication between parties to the lis before any judicial forum

Inherent discretion of Court can be enlarged and invoked to thwart any real threat to judicial authority and constitutional disorder

In the present case contempt proceedings were initiated by the Court against respondents at the instance of appellants regarding non-compliance of its orders

Court after its due satisfaction that there was no "willful disobedience" by alleged contemnors dropped contempt proceedings

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was allowed orderly allowance by the Court but the administrative department did not grant such benefit to the petitioner

Validity

Record reflected that the Court vide order dated 25.08.2021 referred the matter of the petitioners to the competent authority of respondents on the issue of inclusion of Orderly Allowance in pensionable emoluments of the petitioners under the law

Compliance report dated 24.01.2022 explicitly showed that the respondent-department in its 189th meeting decided that the date of applicability of the Orderly Allowance in the pension of retired Additional Directors (EG-07) shall remain the same and shall be without prejudice to the complete review of pay and allowances of Civil Aviation Authority's employees

Prima facie, the said findings of the respondent-department negated the basic spirit of the order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the Court, which could not be construed to be substantial compliance of the said order

Record did not reflect that respondent-department had obtained an interim order from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, restraining the Court not to implement the order passed by the Court

When this was the position of the case, the compliance report dated 24.01.2022 submitted by the respondent-department was to be rejected, warranting interference of the Court to take action against the alleged contemnors under Art. 204 of the Constitution

Show-Cause Notice was issued to the Contemnors for further proceedings.

Contemnors / accused persons were police official who resisted and obstructed Local Commissioner appointed by Court to conduct surprise raid in police station for recovery of illegal detenue

Validity

Contemnors/ accused persons attempted to obstruct administration of justice and through their acts they tended to prejudice determination of matter pending before Court of competent jurisdiction, which act constituted criminal contempt

Contemnors/accused persons had shown their high handedness and tried to interfere in a lawful process, which was likely to lower prestige of a judicial officer as well as judicial system

Acts of contemnors/accused persons were intended and calculated to impede, obstruct and divert administration and course of justice

Contemnors/accused persons physically assaulted and misbehaved with the official and snatched Roznamcha (Daily Diary of Police Station), entry book as well as cell phone from his hands and confined him within the premises of police station for 15/20 minutes by locking outer gate of police station

Police officials had committed contempt of Court and they were liable to be punished in accordance with law

High Court convicted the contemnors/accused persons for committing contempt of Court under Ss. 3 & 4 of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003

Reference was allowed accordingly.

Power to punish for contempt is part of the mechanism created by the Constitution for enforcement of law and fundamental rights guaranteed by it

Such power is a tool to protect independence of the Judiciary and to ensure that those exercising judicial powers are able to discharge their function without being influenced by considerations of fear or favour

Any provision of statute pursuant to which such judicial power is vested in an administrative body or tribunal that forms part of the Executive falls foul of Art. 204 of the Constitution

Power to punish for contempt results in a conviction and a citizen can only be convicted through exercise of judicial power

Such power is to be exercised in accordance with Art. 10A of the Constitution and adjudication required for purposes of imposition of a criminal penalty can only be undertaken by a court and not an administrative body exercising quasi-judicial authority.

Petitioner was aggrieved of not allowing him to visit a prisoner in Jail despite specific direction issued by High Court

Respondent/alleged contemnor in his capacity as Jail Superintendent initially did not comply with the order passed by High Court with regard to visiting of friends and family members of prisoner but later on during the pendency of proceedings before High Court he complied with the order in question

Validity

Respondent/alleged contemnor in his capacity as Jail Superintendent was liable to act with more circumspection in respect of Court orders than was exhibited by him

Conduct of respondent/alleged contemnor indicated highhandedness and brazen disregard for the authority of High Court

Prima facie both essential ingredients to constitute "willful contempt" stood proved

High Court could also not overlook the fact that respondent/alleged contemnor arranged petitioner's visit with the prisoner in accordance with the order passed by High Court during pendency of contempt proceedings

Despite gravity of the offence the High Court restrained itself from proceeding further in present Contempt Petition because of the subsequent events, which had reflected that threat of a substantial detriment to administration of justice was averted

High Court expected that in future respondent/ alleged contemnor would exercise greater circumspection and care otherwise if he repeated such omission, he would be dealt with strictly without show of any leniency to him

Contempt petition was disposed of accordingly.

Respondents/contemnors were Deputy Commissioner and Police Officials who were alleged to have issued detention orders despite specific restraining orders issued by High Courts

Validity

Respondents/contemnors obstructed process of High Courts and disobeyed their orders in terms of S. 204(2)(a) of the Constitution

Respondents/contemnors had taken actions with intent and their actions had the effect of obstructing administration of justice within the meaning of S. 2(b) of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960

Actions of respondents/contemnors in soliciting and issuing detention orders under West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, especially order dated 08-08-2023, had the effect of diverting the course of justice within the meaning S. 6(1)(c) of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 read together with Art. 204(1)(d) of the Constitution

Actions of respondents/ contemnors constituted contempt of court by causing substantial detriment to the administration of justice and had brought court system, as a machinery for enforcement of fundamental rights, into ridicule in terms of S. 18(1) of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960

Necessary ingredients (i.e. actus reus and mens rea) that comprised offence of contempt co-existed for the purposes of establishing charge of contempt

It was the effect of an act and not subjective intent of respondents/contemnors that was relevant

Effect of action of respondents/contemnors was not merely to exhibit blatant and contumacious contempt of court, but such contempt was of a nature that caused substantial detriment to administration of justice

High Court convicted all respondents/contemnors and awarded different sentences of simple imprisonment, with all less than one year

Respondents/contemnors had right to appeal the verdict before Division Bench of High Court within 30 days pursuant to S. 19 of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003

As the sentences were short and convicted respondents were public servants who did not pose a flight risk, therefore, sentences awarded were suspended for 30 days to enable respondents/contemnors to avail their remedy of appeal

High Court directed Federal Government to investigate whether there was an organized policy to use detention orders issued under West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, to scuttle fundamental rights of citizens and undermine the judiciary

High Court directed that such investigation should be meaningful, must be undertaken and overseen by head of the Executive branch of the State

High Court desired Prime Minister of Pakistan, to investigate whether Deputy Commissioners across Pakistan who continued to issue detention orders under West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, in breach of law and Constitution and judicial orders were acting in an organized manner on the basis of illegal orders, and if so, take appropriate remedial action to ensure that the authority of the State to be exercised through chosen representatives of people would continue to be exercised according to the Constitution and the law

Respondents/contemnors were convicted and sentenced accordingly.

Purpose of punishment in a matter of criminal contempt is to uphold public interest in fair and unfettered administration of justice

Guiding principle for purposes of sentencing etc. is to deter conduct that is tantamount to contempt for law and the justice system.

Law presumes that a person intended the natural consequences of his actions.

Respondent/contemnor was holding additional charge of the office of District Police Officer, in which capacity he forwarded request for issuance of detention order to Station House Officer for consideration of Senior Superintendent of Police

There was no material before High Court to establish that respondent/contemnor had previously issued any request seeking issuance of detention order, which was set aside by High Court

There was also no other evidence that respondent/contemnor had remained engaged in a sequence of events to procure detention orders against citizens on the basis that they were inciting public-at-large, and using such orders to defeat access of citizens to justice or to defeat the orders of Courts

High Court did not find that respondent/contemnor was liable for contempt of court

Show cause notice issued to respondent/contemnor was discharged, in circumstances.

Words "notwithstanding any judgment of Supreme Court or High Court" used in an enactment, prima facie appears to be a contempt of Court.

When the accused offers an unqualified apology at an early stage of the contempt proceeding as a sincere and profound remorse, the courts generally drop such proceeding and discharge the accused while warning him to be careful in the future

However, this is not an absolute rule to be followed invariably in all cases

Exceptional facts and circumstances of a case may justify departure from this general rule

Courts may, despite the submission of an unqualified apology, convict the accused in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and may treat his apology only as a mitigating circumstance to impose a lesser punishment.

Unqualified apology tendered by the person accused of having committed the contempt of court necessarily means that he admits his guilt and submits the apology in the realization of the fact that he has done a wrong, for which he repents and seeks forgiveness

In cases where the accused tenders an unqualified apology, there remains no need of framing the charge and recording the evidence.

Assistant Commissioner (appellant) raided official residence of a Qazi (judge) without registration of an FIR, assaulted and arrested him, then took the Qazi barefoot to the Levies Line, instead of the Police Station concerned, and kept him confined there for about 6 hours without registration of any criminal case

Subsequently unqualified/unconditional apology was tendered by the appellant

Held, that in the present case the act of assaulting and manhandling the Qazi, a judge, in the general public while arresting him was a flagrant attempt to undermine and lower the authority of district courts

Majority of the people have recourse to these courts for adjudication of their disputes

It is, therefore, in the public interest to protect the honour and authority of these courts

High Court has taken a lenient view in the matter of imposing punishment on the appellant because of his tendering an unqualified apology at the very early stage of the contempt proceeding and his young age

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the discretion exercised by the High Court in convicting the appellant for contempt and considering his unqualified apology only as a mitigating circumstance for imposing lesser punishment is proper and reasonable, which does not call for any interference

Appeal was dismissed.

Contempt is to disobey or disregard an order, direction or process of Court Commission/Tribunal which a person is legally bound to obey ; a willful breach of an undertaking given to a judicial forum having the authority to proceed against the contemnor ; any act intended to or which tends to bring the authority of Court or the administration of law into disrespect or disrepute and to obstruct, interfere, or prejudice the process of law or the due course of any judicial proceedings, fall within the category of contempt of Court

In contempt of Court / Commission there must be involved some "act done or writing published calculated to bring a Court or judge of a Court into contempt or to lower his authority " of something " calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or lawful process of the Court

Purpose of contempt proceedings is not to wreak vengeance but to vindicate honour of the competent judicial/quasi-judicial forum, so as to keep the public confidence in the judicial forums undiminished

Disobedience of prohibition order or violation of stay order is a crime

Mere knowledge of existence of such order is enough to constitute contempt proceedings irrespective of service of order no excuse can be acceptable in this regard and persons not parties to the case but fully aware of Commission / Court's order may be held liable to contempt of Court if they willfully disobey such order.

Plaintiff also filed separate appeal against the said order before the Commissioner, wherein petitioner's counsel raised objection as to maintainability of the said appeal

Commissioner sine die adjourned said appeal till decision of aforesaid suit, however, on application of the petitioner, he proceeded with the appeal

Civil Court issued ad-interim injunction

Respondent moved contempt application against petitioner and respondents who had cancelled the said registration and restrained from using the brand name of the schools

Petitioner moved application under S.151, C.P.C., for summary dismissal of the contempt petition being non-maintainable

Trial Court suspended said two orders and held the contempt petition to be maintainable

Petitioner's appeal was also dismissed

Validity

Petitioner's application under S. 151, C.P.C., was not moved in the main suit rather the same was filed in contempt proceedings

Under the provisions of R. 2(3) of O. XXXIX of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Court was not competent to restore the status quo ante

Court had got inherent jurisdiction to bring back the party to a position where it originally stood as if the order had not been contravened, however, such an order could only be passed in suit and not in proceedings

Equity could not be given precedence/over-riding effect over the clear mandate of law

Courts were supposed to confine themselves within the contours drawn by the law and they could not be permitted to travel beyond the permissible scope of a provision/ statute

Interim order was in field when another order was passed

Restraining order would continue provided no lapse was attributable to the conduct of plaintiff, despite the fact that no specific order was passed extending the order granting status quo

Argument as to grant of final relief in the garb of interim injunction could be raised before the court concerned, which could suspend the order if concluded that order was prima facie illegal/without lawful authority

Constitutional petition was allowed; impugned order/judgment were set-aside being illegal/without lawful authority; Trial Court was declared to be at liberty to pass order in application under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 if it would hold the field.

Law of contempt backed by Art. 204 of the Constitution and provisions of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, reflect that the Legislature has determined in its wisdom that speech, unless in temperate language and unless its content does not impute illegal motives to a Judge and does not impugn integrity and impartiality of the Judge would amount to contempt of court.

Determination of requisite intent in relation to criminal or judicial contempt is to be undertaken on an objective basis

Alleged contemnor may claim that his actions were not backed by mens rea, or intent to commit contempt, or may even be willing to lead evidence in support of his actual intent at relevant time

Test applicable for purposes of constructing intent is not subjective but is objective

Raison d'etre of contempt law is not to punish but to determine conduct that interferes with or obstruct justice

Contempt of Court is not a strict liability offence

In determining mens rea on an objective basis, it is the effect that law focuses on and not the subjective intent of contemnor

Even where objectional conduct is deleterious to authority of Court, unless the effect is quantified and found capable of causing substantial detriment to administration of justice, the offending act does not attract conviction and punishment

Conduct found capable of interfering with and becoming a substantial detriment to administration of justice also keeps evolving with time.

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.

Matter of contempt of court is essentially a matter between the court and the alleged contemnor, therefore, if the court concerned, in exercise of its discretion, does not take any action for its alleged contempt or accept the apology rendered by the alleged contemnor, for certain reasons, the appellate court would not ordinarily substitute its own opinion and direct that court to proceed in the matter necessarily or reject the apology so rendered.

Petitioner sought initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for non-compliance of the High Court's order whereby a settlement deed was arrived at

Validity

Order passed by the High Court in Constitutional petition could not be taken as a decree, which could be executed in a contempt petition or otherwise

Even if the petitioner's contention that settlement deed had become part of the Court's order was considered, the same could not be enforced, for the reason that terms of settlement deal were changed materially

Contempt jurisdiction was only meant for criminal proceedings against the respondents, if the Court was convinced that contempt of Court was so committed and no direction for amendment in any order could be made in that situation

Contempt petition was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner could approach the appropriate Court of plenary jurisdiction for execution of settlement deed or subsequent events agreed between the parties.

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.

Counsel for petitioner was asked to make his submissions on the maintainability of the petition but rather than doing so he started to make scurrilous, scandalous, offensive and insulting remark against the present bench and the judiciary which tirade continued unabated for about 15 to 20 minutes despite the counsel being asked on numerous occasions to leave the rostrum (which he refused to do) and the reader of the court calling other cases listed for hearing which lead to the dismissal of his petition for non-prosecution

Even the Advocate General was unable to persuade the counsel to leave the rostrum and on the bench's query as to the conduct of the counsel, the Advocate General advised the bench that such conduct prima facie amounted to contempt on the face of the court

However showing maximum judicial restraint largely on account of the young age of the counsel and with a view to avoid potentially damaging his career present bench decided against initiating contempt proceedings

High Court deprecated the misbehaviour on the part of the counsel and observed that it was not expected of an advocate of the High Court and as such cautioned him as to his future conduct when appearing before the High Court lest he might face appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

Applicant was aggrieved of failure to implement order passed by Supreme Court and High Court with regard to rape victims

Applicant contended that police stations failed to engaged civil society organizations on receipt of rape complaint on various occasions

Preservation of testing of DNA evidence was sporadic, un-standardized and delayed

Facilities available for DNA testing continued to be severely limited and dysfunctional

Plea raised by alleged contemnors was that there was no intention to flout the order or non-compliance but they were making some Standard Operating Procedures document

Effect

Alleged contemnors assured that Standard Operating Procedures would be religiously followed for proper and effective implementation of judgments

Slight changes were made in draft of Standard Operating Procedures to make compliance more effectively and practically

Application was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioners invoked contempt proceedings against authorities for non-compliance of the orders passed by High Court and Supreme Court with regard to regularizing their services

Validity

Compliance report was not incompliance with the orders passed by Supreme Court in letter and spirit

Prima facie authorities did not look into the basic spirit of the order and the same was rejected to the extent of petitioners

Malice was pointed out by petitioners on the part of alleged contemnors warranting interference of High Court to take action against alleged contemnors under Art. 204 of the Constitution who failed and neglected to issue regularization of their service order to petitioners

High Court could either initiate contempt proceedings for contempt against alleged contemnors under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Ordinance, 2003 or under Art.204 of the Constitution or to direct the authorities to implement judgment in letter and spirit, expeditiously without any delay and with reasonable dispatch

High Court in the interest of justice granted last opportunity to the authorities to comply with the direction of High Court as well as Supreme Court

Authorities were to file compliance report, in circumstances.

Offence of contempt (of court) was not attracted in the case of a retired judge because after retirement the latter attained the status of a private citizen.

Judges were not immune from public scrutiny nor criticism.

Under the Constitution, the judicature is the machinery put in place to enforce the fundamental rights of citizens and adjudicate grievances of citizens against the state and public authorities

Article 204 of the Constitution explicitly provides for the punishment of someone who disobeys the order of the court or tends to prejudice the determination of a matter pending before the court

Illegality that attaches to an action taken or order passed by a public authority or official in disobedience of an order of the court or to prejudice the determination of a matter sub judice is sufficient ground for setting aside such action or order for being illegal

Penalty under Art. 204 of the Constitution read together with the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, attaches to the person who indulges in contempt of court and is independent of the illegality that mars the action taken or order passed in breach of a court order

Allowing the illegal action or order of a contemnor to stand while the contemnor is himself liable to punishment for taking such action or passing such order, would undermine the entire scheme of enforcement of fundamental rights and adjudication of grievances of citizens prescribed by the Constitution and cannot be countenanced.

Petitioners assailed notification issued by official respondents whereby private respondent was assigned professional engineer work by posting him as Executive Engineer being diploma holder

Chief Court directed the parties to maintain status quo

Private respondent, however, alternatively joined his duties at another district in defiance of the court order

Respondents appeared before the court and submitted unconditional apology

Apology was accepted but the impugned notification was recalled and the private respondent was directed to report at his previous place of posting

Writ petition and contempt petition were disposed of accordingly.

Neither in application any specification was given with reference to any particular construction nor the same as given in plaint, in which decree was passed

Decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and maintained by High Court could be executed under O.XXI, R.32 C.P.C.

Order of High Court was implemented / executed on 13-10-2015, when report was submitted by Revenue authorities, therefore, no further application could be submitted to Deputy Commissioner

High Court directed Deputy Commissioner and Station House Officer of Police Station not to proceed further on application filed by applicant/decree-holder, as no further process could be initiated / launched against respondent

High Court restrained applicant / decree-holder from initiating frivolous applications as both parties could seek proper redressal under O.XXI, R.32, C.P.C.

Application for contempt of court was dismissed, in circumstances.

Question before High Court was whether intra-court appeal under S. 19 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 was maintainable against order of High Court whereby criminal original initiated by appellant was disposed of with the observation that since order of High Court in Constitutional petition had been complied with, therefore no further proceedings could be carried out against alleged contemnor

Held, that through impugned order, no contempt proceedings were initiated against alleged contemnor and disposal of criminal original by the High Court as such did not amount to an order appealable under S.19 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003

Intra-court appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Importer was aggrieved of non-compliance of orders of release of vehicle by Customs Authorities, therefore, he filed contempt application

Single Judge of High Court before invoking contempt proceedings allowed one week time to the authorities for compliance of the order

Validity

Only such orders, decisions, judgments which finally terminated contempt proceedings against contemnor were appealable

Words 'orders passed in contempt' meant the order only awarding punishment and it was that order which could be assailed in Intra Court Appeal

Interlocutory, interim or procedural orders did not fall within the ambit of order passed in contempt of Court

Authorities assailed interim procedural order of Single Judge of High Court which they were deliberately avoiding to comply with the direction and lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Submission of an unconditional apology by the alleged contemnor in every case was neither a condition precedent, nor a point of ego or prestige for the Courts, which practices were to be adhered to in each case as a rule of thumb before discharging the notice for contempt

Similarly, mere submission of unconditional apology was also no ground for further inaction in the proceedings or discharge of such notice without looking into the intent behind it.

Had the present case been a simple case of raid or arrest of a judicial officer from his house, the contemnor could have been excused on the ground that he was not aware of the legal position regarding the arrest of a judicial officer but the acts of dragging, manhandling and beating the judicial officer in view of the general public could by no stretch of imagination be regarded as innocent and bona fide acts, rather it appeared to be a flagrant attempt to undermine and lower authority of the Court

In such like cases the Courts, in order to safeguard the dignity and honour of the Courts were not reluctant to initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnors

General interest of the community was based on protecting the authority of subordinate courts

If the Civil Judges, Judicial Magistrates and Qazis were led into a trap by unscrupulous officers, and if they were assaulted, hand cuffed, the public was bound to loose faith in courts, which would be destructive of the basic structure of an ordered society

Permitting such actions would supplant the rule of law by civil servants and the police

Present case was of exceptional nature as the incident created a situation where functioning of the subordinate courts all over the province was adversely affected and the administration of justice was paralyzed

Incident in question undermined the dignity of courts in the province

Judicial Officers, Qazis, Judges and Magistrates all over the province were in a state of shock and felt insecure and humiliated

Number of Bar Associations also passed resolutions and went on strike

Contemnor (Assistant Commissioner) was the main character in the entire incident and he had planned the entire episode to humiliate the judicial officer in the public eye

Though the contemnor deserved maximum punishment being the main actor, yet the High Court was inclined to take lenient view against the contemnor for the reason that from the first day notice was given to him, he tendered unconditional apology

Contemnor was convicted under S.4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ with imprisonment till rising of the Court

In default in payment of fine, the contemnor was directed to further undergo imprisonment for a period 15 days

Constitutional petition was disposed of.

Jurisdiction to initiate proceeding and take decision of the contempt was inherent in a High Court or Supreme Court and the procedures of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 did not apply to contempt proceedings.

Jurisdiction to punish for contempt touched upon two Fundamental Rights of citizens, namely, "right to personal liberty" and "right to freedom of expression"; and therefore contempt of court law must be jealously and carefully applied and such power was to be prudently exercised with greatest reluctance

Court, if found that there existed contempt of Court beyond condonable limits, then strong arm of law must be used in name of public interest

Before a person may be held in contempt for disobeying a Court's order, such order must spell out the details of compliance in clear, specific, and unambiguous terms, so that such person would readily know exactly what duties or obligations were imposed upon him

Where there was indefiniteness and uncertainty in a judgment/order or where prima facie two views were possible to be drawn then unless it was specifically held that a party not only was bound by the terms issued in a judgment/order but also had defied such direction deliberately; such party could not be punished for contempt

Punishment for contempt of court could only rest on a clear, intentional violation of a specific, narrowly drawn order and specificity was essential pre-requisite of contempt proceedings

Contempt was a matter between Court and alleged contemnor and no one could demand as of right initiation of proceedings for contempt

Jurisdiction in contempt proceedings was to be exercised on a clear case having been made out and was not the personal glorification of a Judge in his office but an anxiety to maintain the efficacy of administration of justice which dictated the conscience of a Judge to move or not to move in contempt jurisdiction

Litigant may invite attention of a Court to such facts that may persuade a Court in initiating proceedings for contempt, however such person filing an application or petition before a Court did not become a complainant or petitioner in such proceedings and was mere informer or relator

Duty of such person ended with facts being brought to the notice of Court and thereafter it was for Court to act on such information

Court may at its discretion allow a litigant continue to render its assistance during the course of proceedings

Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 could not be used for the implementation or execution of an order and such process of contempt could not be invoked in aid of a remedy where some other method of achieving desired result was available.

Petitioner filed application for initiation of contempt proceedings against respondent on the ground that he had failed to honour his commitment of setting up a cabin within the area from where he had been ejected

Authorities placed on record the photographs which explicitly showed that the wall had been erected before a closed gate for providing required space to the petitioner

Petitioner contended that the cabin which was originally available at the location had not been provided

Validity

For maintaining a case for contempt of court, there must be some act done or writing published calculated to bring a Court or judge of a court into contempt or to lower his authority by something calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or lawful purpose of the court or disregard an order, direction or process of court which a person was legally bound to obey; or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court; or any act intended to or which tend to bring the authority of court or the administration of law into disrespect or disrepute and to obstruct, interfere, or prejudice the process of law or the due course of any judicial proceedings falling within the category of contempt of court

Petitioner had failed to point out that the action of the alleged contemnor fell within the aforesaid categories

Authorities had substantially complied with the order passed by the court

No action for contempt of court was required

Application was dismissed.

Petitioners sought initiation of contempt of court proceedings against Department of Provincial Government on ground that said Department did not comply with directions of High Court

Validity

Record revealed that prima facie actions of Department negated basic spirit of order of High Court which could not be construed as substantial compliance of the said order and explanation offered by said Department was not tenable

High Court observed that however no malice could be seen on part of alleged contemnor / Department warranting action against under Art.204 of the Constitution

High Court directed that show-cause notice under Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 be issued to Department, in circumstances.

Tendering of unconditional apology did not necessarily lead to putting an end to the contempt proceedings.

Courts in the matter of contempt tended to show grace and magnanimity towards the alleged contemnor in cases where the contemnor without justifying his action/statement showed his repentance, remorse and at the earliest opportunity submitted an unconditional apology by throwing himself at the mercy of the Courts

Said rule, however, was not a rule of thumb and could not be applied to every case as an apology tendered did not automatically purge the contemnor of the contempt and may not necessarily be accepted unless the Court from the surrounding circumstances was satisfied about the bona fide of the contemnor.

Apology has to consist of acknowledgement of commission of contempt and an unequivocal expression of regret for such commission.

Right to freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Art. 19 of the Constitution was not absolute, unlimited or unfettered but subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the law and one such restriction so imposed was in relation to the contempt of Court

Protective cover so provided to freedom of speech and expression could not be stretched to cover a speech, comment or publication which may tend to influence, impede, embarrass or obstruct the administration of justice, scandalize the Court and bring the Judges of the Supreme Court into hatred, ridicule or contempt.