SC accepts Vawda, Kamal’s apologies for contemptuous media talks but warns against ‘further transgression’ – Pakistan
The Supreme Court on Friday accepted the apologies tendered by lawmakers Faisal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal for their tirades against the judiciary but also warned them against “further transgression”.
It also again issued show-cause notices to 34 media channels, including 26 whose explanations Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa said were “not justifiable”.
The development came as a three-member bench — headed by CJP Isa and including Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan — resumed hearing the contempt case against the lawmakers.
On May 17, a three-judge SC bench had issued contempt notices to independent Senator Vawda and Kamal, a Muttahida Qaumi-Movement— Pakistan (MQM-P), for several “malicious” allegations against the judiciary and the judges.
Earlier this month, the SC had also issued show cause notices to 34 television channels, asking them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for airing the lawmakers’ remarks.
On June 4, Kamal submitted an unconditional and unqualified apology while Vawda had simply sought withdrawal of the contempt charges, explaining he never intended to bring the judiciary into disrepute.
However, on Wednesday, Vawda also tendered an unconditional apology before the apex court, stating that he deeply regretted any harm that may have been caused by his May 18 press conference.
Today, Vawda and Kamal both appeared before the SC as the bench resumed the case proceedings.
Barrister Farogh Naseem appeared as Kamal’s counsel while Advocate Faisal Siddiqui was present on behalf of 26 television channels who had submitted a response in the court.
Dictating today’s order, Justice Isa observed that both parliamentarians had “realised that the words that they used were inappropriate, have withdrawn the same and tendered [an] unconditional apology to this court”.
Withdrawing the show-cause notices against them, the top judge emphasised: “We however expect that they will stand by their statements submitted in court because if there is further transgression, a simple apology may not be then acceptable to this court.”
The chief justice then recalled the notices issued to the TV channels, noting that Siddiqui said he represented 26 of those 34 channels.
Referring to a “preliminary reply” submitted by them, CJP Isa observed: “These documents are not signed by any representatives of the said TV channels but they have been submitted under the signatures” of counsels Siddiqui and Usman Mirza.
“We cannot consider the same as replies submitted by the said channels. Nonetheless, we have considered the contents of the same and the said replies, which are almost identical in nature, have referred to that they can only be proceeded against if mal-intention is shown,” Justice Isa remarked.
He further noted that the channels’ reply asserted that they had broadcast the conferences live in “public interest and as it was their duty and right” under Article 19A (right to information) of the Constitution.
The top judge said this was “despite the fact that during the hearing, Siddiqui did concede that the contents of one of the press conferences did prima facie constitute contempt”.
“The defences taken are: (a) a TV channel is not responsible for whatever it broadcasts if the same has been said by another; (b) that to constitute contempt there must be mal-intent; (c) it is their right and duty to do so,” the chief justice observed.
“The explanation is prima facie not justifiable. Accordingly, we are now constrained to issue show-cause notices to all the said channels who have submitted the replies. Since the remaining channels have not submitted any reply, we are also issuing contempt notices to them as to why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of court,” Justice Isa stated.
The hearing
At the outset of the hearing, Barrister Naseem informed the court that Kamal had expressed regret on his press conference.
CJP Isa then asked Vawda if he had tendered an apology, to which he replied in the affirmative.
Here, Justice Isa asked Siddiqui about his client’s whereabouts, to which he replied that he was appearing on behalf of 26 TV channels.
“None of your clients have submitted a response yet,” Justice Isa remarked. “Not even a single media [channel] has submitted a written response,” the top judge said.
To this, Advocate Siddiqui responded that a show-cause notice had not been issued to any media organisation. “Do you want [us] to issue a show-cause notice to them?” Justice Isa asked.
Here, Justice Abbasi remarked that a response signed by a responsible officer of the media organisations should have been submitted. The CJP observed that the channels had not implemented the court orders, at which Siddiqui stated that their representatives were present in the court.
CJP reiterated that no written response had been filed while the counsel maintained that he had submitted the same, at which the former then highlighted that the reply did not have the signatures of any media official.
“The reply is signed by the lawyers and not by the channels. It is compulsory in contempt of court cases for the channels’ signature to be there,” Justice Isa remarked.
However, Siddiqui argued saying that if a show-cause notice had been issued, then the reply would have been submitted with the channels’ signatures.
“Do you not like the Constitution?” Justice Isa quipped, adding that he presumed the advocate would begin his arguments by speaking about the Constitution.
“If someone labels a person a thief, and the media says it has only reported on it, is that correct?” Justice Isa questioned. “Should such free media be allowed or not?” he wondered.
“Freedom of press and freedom of expression are two different things,” the chief justice remarked.
The judge and Siddiqui then went back and forth about the history of press freedom, with CJP Isa then directing the lawyer to read the Preamble of the Constitution. Justice Isa noted that it started with an Arabic verse and asked: “Where is the modern age mentioned here?”
Siddiqui then assured the court that he took full responsibility for the response submitted on behalf of the media channels.
“You yourself said that at least one of the press conferences was contemptuous,” Justice Isa recalled. The lawyer said he had said so in retrospect, at which the top judge said he had not.
More to follow
Source link
