The Supreme Court on Friday withdrew contempt of charges issued to Senator Faisal Vawda and Muttahida Qaumi Movement (Pakistan) MNA Mustafa Kamal after they both tendered unqualified apologies.
In his order, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa—who led a three-member bench hearing the case—said both Vawda and Kamal had realized the language they had used to comment on the conduct of judges was inappropriate. “They have now withdrawn their statement and tendered an unconditional apology to the court,” it said, adding this was a result of them reflecting on their conduct and tendering apologies. Kamal had tendered his apology during a previous hearing earlier this month, while Vawda submitted his apology on Wednesday.
Urging the lawmakers to exercise their freedom of expression in Parliament under Article 66 of the Constitution, the CJP cautioned both politicians to be careful in the future when discussing the judiciary. “We respect you and hope you respect us,” he remarked. “Demeaning each other will harm the public,” he added.
In its order, the bench issued notices to 24 channels that had broadcast Vawda’s press conference and to 28 that had broadcast Kamal’s interaction with media. It directed the channels to submit an explanation within two weeks as to why they contempt of court charges should not be initiated against them.
“[Lawyer] Faisal Siddiqui states that he represents 26 channels and they have filed a ‘preliminary reply.’ These documents are not signed by any representatives of the said television channels but have been submitted under the signature of Faisal Siddiqui and Usman Mirza,” read the order, adding the court could not consider such documents as replies tendered by the 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-intent is shown’ and that ‘settled principle of the law of contempt, that mal-intent must be established’.” It further noted that the channels had defended their broadcast of the press conferences by citing Article 19 and Article 19-A of the Constitution, which designate the right to information as a fundamental right of every citizen of Pakistan.
“Even if we assumed that the documents that have been filed are replies to the notices, the said television channels have justified their broadcast of the said press conferences, despite the fact that during the hearing, Faisal Siddiqui conceded that the contents of one of the press conference did prima facie constitute contempt,” it said. According to the order, the channels’ defense was that they were not responsible for the contents of commentary by any individual; that contempt requires mal-intent; and it was the channels’ right and duty to broadcast the press conferences.
The order stated the court did not deem the explanation prima facie justifiable. “Since the remaining channels have not issued any reply to the notices, we are also issuing contempt notices to them as to why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of court,” it said, adding counsel had informed it no channel had broadcast any apology for the press conferences.
Further, the order directed the channels to submit with their replies details of any advertisements preceding or following the press conferences, as well the amount earned from them.