ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday accepted the unconditional apologies tendered by independent Senator Faisal Vawda and MQM-Pakistan Member National Assembly Mustafa Kamal in a contempt case for leveling malicious and serious allegations against the judiciary, passing comments on the judges, and speaking about subjudice cases.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi accepted the unconditional apologies of both the parliamentarians and withdrew the show-cause notices issued to them.
The court, however, issued show-cause notices to 26 TV channels as the court declared their replies and explanation as unjustifiable. It also issued notices to other TV channels who had not submitted their replies to the show-cause notices earlier served on them.
The court directed that all the 34 channels should submit their respective replies within two week, with the signatures of their owners as well the larger share- holders.
Vawda and Kamal have realised that whatever, the words, they had used were inappropriate and tendered unconditional apologies, the court noted in its order.
“In view of the reflection of the order and tendering their apology, we withdraw the show-cause notices issued to them and we expect that they will stand by their statement they have submitted in court and in future transgression the simple apology may not be acceptable to this court,” the court held.
The court further noted that notices were issued to TV channels which had broadcasted live the press conferences of Vawda, while 28 channels had broadcasted live the press conference of Kamal, and they were called upon to submit their replies to show-cause notices in two weeks as to why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of court.
The court noted in its order that Faisal Siddiqui stated that he represents 26 TV channels and they have filed their preliminary replies. The court further noted that these replies were not signed by any representative of the said TV channels but had been submitted under the signature of Faisal Siddiqui and Muhammad Usman Mirza, the Advocate-on Record (AOR).
“We cannot consider the same as replies tendered by the channels, Nonetheless, we have considered the contempt of the same and the same replies, which are almost identical in nature, have referred that that they can only be proceeded against if mal-intent is shown,” the court noted.
The court noted that Faisal Siddiqui stated that under settled principles of law of contempt, the mal-intent must be established.
They further proceeded that airing the live broadcast in the public interest is their right and duty under Article 19 and 10-A of the Constitution.
“Channels have further justified that their broadcast of the said press conferences despite the fact that during the hearing Mr Siddiqui did concede that one of the press conferences prima facie constitutes contempt,” the order said.
Thus, the court noted, that the defence takes are (a) That TV channels are not responsible for whether it broadcast if the same has been telecasted by another, (b) that to constitute contempt there must be mal-intent and (c) this is their right and duty to do so.
“In our considered opinion, the explanation is not prima facie justifiable. Accordingly, we are not constraint to issue show cause notices to all the said channels who have submitted their replies,” the court held in its order, adding that since the remaining channels have not replied to the notices, we are issuing contempt notices as to why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of court.
The court further noted that during the hearing we had inquired whether any retraction or apology was tendered by the said channel which broadcasted the pressers and it was not.
Moreover, it transpired that the same news conferences were either re-broadcasted or portion from the said broadcasts of pressers, the court noted.
“Undoubtedly, being commercial enterprises, the channels makes money by their broadcast, therefore, along with their replies to show-cause notices, they should also include whether the press conferences were proceed by advertisements, the number thereof and the amount earned therefrom, and the same upon conclusion of such press conferences, the same material also be provided,” the court held.
The court further directed that their replies should also stipulates the number of time of the press conferences and other material brought from which was broadcast and the amount earned in respect of advertisements, revenues.
The court directed that the replies to show cause notices be submitted under the joint signatures of the owners of the channels and larger share-holders.
The court noted that it was clear that there was no absolute freedom for the press, which has also conceded by Faisal Siddiqui under Article 19 of the Constitution.
The court further noted that Article 204 empowers the Supreme Court and high court to initiate contempt of court in terms of Article 204 (2) (b) and d which may have application to this case.
Earlier, during the course of hearing advocate Faisal Siddiqui argued before the court on behalf of 26 news channels while Vawda and Kamal appeared in-person before the court and thanked the court for withdrawing the show-cause notices issued against them.
CJP Qazi Faez Isa told both the law makers that they were parliamentarians, adding that Parliament was an important institution in which they were representing the people
“We respect you and expect you should also respect us as an institution, and if we both don’t respect each other then there will be chaos in the public,” the CJP told them, adding that “although Article 66 provides protection to Parliament but when you go outside Parliament, you will have to be very much cautious by saying anything and Article 66 does not apply then”.
“There is a difference between your status being the lawmakers and that of an ordinary person.”
Vawda said that he was being declared as proxy for which he was very disturbed.
“I cannot say anything about this as I am responsible for myself and I don’t have any objection over personal criticism but when it comes to my institution, then I cannot tolerate if anything derogative language is used against my institution,” the CJP told them.
Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan, while arguing before the court, said that both apologies have now been tendered by the alleged condemners. The AG submitted that if Fasial Siddiqui wanted to submit fresh reply, then it should be considered. “But what is your opinion about the contempt made by TV channels,” the CJP inquired, to which, the AG replied that he had to fulfill his duties as required under Rule 7 of the law if the court may further proceed in this matter. “Is there any particular law that prohibits TV channels to telecast live anything,” Justice Abbasi asked the AG. The AG replied that Section 8 of the contempt court give rights to fair reporting but if something is omitted contemptuous during the live telecast, it can be beeped, adding that no contempt proceeding could be initiated with relate to Article 19 of the Constitution which is meant for freedom of speech but subject to some reasonable restrictions imposed by law.
But the case was not under Article 19-A which is about access to information as the apex court had already provided in an application filed by a private citizen, seeking information regarding the strength of employees in the apex court.
The AG further submitted that after all media have be very much responsible when something goes to public as he said that the public may consider as to what the media has narrated might be true.
Therefore, the media has the responsibility to come up in a very responsible manner, the AG submitted, adding that the media are now a commercial enterprise, therefore, they have to be very much responsible.
“We know that a channel is purchased for millions of rupees having large staff and it has to manage its staff in case of salaries to employees, but instead of showing such contents that lead to ridiculing institutions, it should show some entertainment programmes,” Justice Afghan observed.
The AG submitted that the press conferences held by the two lawmakers were not so objectionable as done by some other two people and held press conferences using highly derogatory remarks.
“Who held those two press conferences,” the CJP asked. The AG replied that one was held by Rauf Hasan, the leader of PTI.
“What did he say in that press conference,” the CJP asked.
The AG replied that he could not repeat that for being very much derogatory against “your lordship as well as chief justice of the Islamabad High Court”.
“I think this Rauf Hasan is not the brother of Fawad Hassan whom we have given relief in MD PTV case,” the CJP asked, to which the AG submitted: “Yes he is the brother of Fawad Hassan Fawad.”
“So Rauf Hasan might be angry as to why his brother was given relief by the court,” the CJP added.
During the hearing, on court query, Rana Jawad, appeared before the court and told that he is Director News of Geo TV.
“How much you have earned from those broadcasts and how much advertisements you got,” the CJP asked him.
Rana Jawad replied that they did not get any advertisements in those broadcasts.
The CJP asked as to how many times they broadcasted the said press conferences.
Rana Jawad replied that they broadcasted only the operative part of the press conferences.
“And in how many bulletins, you ran the press conferences,” the CJP asked, to which Rana Jawad replied that in 11 to 12 bulletins.
“How much you earned from those press conferences,” the CJP further asked.
“I have no knowledge,” Rana Jawad replied.
“How much you charge on advertisements in prime time,” the CJP asked.
Rana Jawad said that usually we charge Rs200,000 but it depends as to how much is the frequency. “You earn Rs200,000 in one minute,” the CJP asked Jawad to which he said that he has no knowledge as he deals with the editorial board. Meanwhile, Javed Somro of another TV channel also appeared before the court where the CJP asked him as to how much they earned from those press conferences. Somro told the court that he did not know. Faisal Hakeem of yet another channel also appeared and told the court that he had no knowledge about the money they earned from those press conferences.
