Contempt of court case: Kamal apology rejected, Vawda allowed to submit reply afresh

ISLAMABAD: A three-member Supreme Court bench Wednesday rejected a request of Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQMP) MNA Mustafa Kamal, seeking acceptance of his unconditional apology and withdrawal of a show-cause notice issued to him.

However, the bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, and comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afgan, allowed independent Senator Faisal Vawda to file a fresh reply to the show-cause notice issued to him in one week.

The bench was hearing a suo moto notice case on two press conferences, held by Faisal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal, targeting the judiciary and its judges, separately.

Senator Vawda, along with his counsel Moeez Ahmed and Mustafa Kamal, along with his counsel Barrister Farogh Naseem, appeared before the apex court bench.

Barrister Farogh Naseem contended that his client had submitted his response to the show-cause notice and tendered an unconditional apology, throwing himself at the mercy of the court. He stated that he held “all the judges, in particular, the judges of superior courts of Pakistan, in the highest respect and esteem”.

The CJP asked Farogh Naseem, “Whether the press conference, held by Mr. Vawda, inspired you to also hold a press conference.”

“Not at all, no inspiration,” Farogh replied, adding that, in fact, his client talked about a pending Riba (usury) case. At this, the chief justice asked the counsel as to whether those cases were not filed before the Federal Shariat Court. Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan took the rostrum and replied in affirmative.

The CJP asked Farogh Naseem, “When you did not say anything, then why you are apologising. It’s not a matter of ego for us; you are a member of parliament and we have the highest respect for parliament and the nation also requires a respectable parliament.” He questioned as to whether the nation could survive without parliament. “Being a member of a constitutional institution, you are attacking another constitutional institution,” the CJP told Farogh. “We have tendered an unconditional apology,” Farogh submitted. However, the chief justice remarked that a press conference was held in the National Press Club, which was aired by all TV channels.

“We talk about morality and what our Deen (religion) says,” the CJP raised a question.

Meanwhile, AGP Mansoor Usman submitted that the Constitution and law did not describe any restriction on dual nationality of judges. He also read out Article 66 and 68 of the Constitution, adding that no discussion could be held on the floor of parliament on the conduct of judges of the superior courts.

“If it does [discussion is held on conduct of judges], then what happens,” the CJP asked, to which the attorney general replied that “They will be treated under Article 204 of the Constitution, relating to contempt of court”. They are the people who do legislation, hence they should be very much careful in giving such statements against the judiciary and its judges.

The AGP also read out the Article 19 of the Constitution related to freedom of expression, which has also some restrictions. The AGP submitted that independence of judiciary should be fully secured.

The CJP observed that some use abusive language, trying to pressure the judiciary. “From where these people take inspiration,” he asked, adding that the judiciary was not fond of serving contempt notices. “If someone is not happy with the court decisions, they can make fair comment on the judgments but, at least, they should first read it thoroughly,” the CJP remarked, adding that they were sitting in courts to decide cases at the earliest, while parliamentarians ought to make good legislation. “But when you attack the whole judiciary, it will create doubts among people which is not fair,” the CJP remarked. Islam has specifically mentioned the word “decency”, the CJP continued.

At this, Moeez Ahmed, counsel for Faisal Vawda, replied that there are not two opinions about it. “Should we give notices to 34 TV channels,” the CJP remarked. Then the bench issued contempt notices to 34 TV channels for airing contemptuous press conferences held by Faisal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal.

During the hearing, the CJP also took a strong exception to a notification issued by Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra), restraining the media from giving coverage to the court proceedings. “Who are you to regulate this?” the chief justice asked the counsel for Pemra, adding “What law gives you the power to restrain reporters from covering court proceedings?”

The counsel submitted that the notification was only meant for not broadcasting remarks of judges and issuing tickers to TV channels. He submitted that the notification allowed reporters to report the courts orders.

Meanwhile, the CJP observed that instead of holding press conferences in the National Press Club, “they should come over here and say in front of us instead of tweeting on the social media”.

Moeez Ahmed informed the court that his client Faisal Vawda had filed his reply. He refused to issue an unconditional apology to the SC, and sought an end to the matter, saying that several others had issued similar statements in the past.

Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, while citing the transcript submitted by Pemra, told the counsel that his client’s press conference was person-specific. The judge said that Vawda, while replying to a question posed by a journalist, had replied that he had come to talk about Justice Babar Sattar of Islamabad High Court and Justice Athar Minallah. “Your press conference was totally person-specific, as you had already made up your mind to talk about these two judges and not to talk about the people of Pakistan,” Justice Irfan told Vawda’s counsel.

“What you want to say that you are serving people, judiciary and parliament,” the CJP asked Vawda’s counsel. “Are you a judge, a president of any bar association that you are holding a press conference on judiciary?” the CJP asked Vawda’s counsel, and further asked as to why he was not doing his job in parliament. “If you say that you have achieved your purpose, you are maligning the whole Senate,” the CJP remarked.

“Our only purpose was to remove all those conspiracies being hatched against the judiciary,” Vawda’s counsel replied. The CJP observed that they had saved journalists and heard their petitions as well.

Meanwhile, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Shahzad Shaukat also appeared before the court and submitted that they had condemned the tweets and accusations against the judiciary and it was for Pemra to protect the legal fraternity. He submitted that the comments made on the judiciary were uncalled for, adding that such types of comments create a wrong perception among the people about the judiciary.

Attorney General Mansoor Usman read out clause 2 of Article 204 of the Constitution concerning contempt of court and suggested the court to issue a notice to Pemra as well. The AGP submitted that whatever was told about the judges of Islamabad High Court could not be tolerated at any cost.

Barrister Farogh Naseem requested the court to discharge the show-cause notice issued to his client Mustafa Kamal. “We are not taking any action today,” the CJP replied. “You should hold a press conference to show your remorse,” Justice Irfan Saadat Khan told Farogh, to which he replied that he would do it, and again requested for discharging the show-cause notice. The court however, rejected his pela.

Meanwhile, the court, while dictating its order, noted down that in pursuance to its last order issuing show-cause notices to Mustafa Kamal and Faisal Vawda, both had submitted their replies. “Mr. Vawda also filed an application, seeking another opportunity to file a fresh reply to show-cause notice, to which we grant him one week to file fresh reply,” the court noted in its order.

The court further noted that Pemra, in pursuance of its last order, has submitted transcripts of both the press conferences, along with questions and answers, adding that it was stated by the regulatory body that some TV channels had broadcast the press conferences of both Vawda and Mustafa Kamal. The court issued contempt notices to all the 34 TV channels through Pemra “as to why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of court”.

The court also directed the AGP to highlight the contents in the two transcripts of both the press conferences which constituted contempt of court.

Similarly, the court directed a lawyer, who was Hafiz-e-Quran, to assist it in the light of Quranic verses with regard to harmful contempt speeches and adjourned further hearing until June 28.

Justice Irfan Saadat also asked the counsel for Faisal Vawda to read before appearing the court on the next date of hearing Section 4 of the Contempt of Court law besides reading some judgments delivered in the matter related to contempt cases.