SC convicts Talal in contempt case

The Supreme Court on Thursday held firebrand Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Talal Chaudhry in contempt of court and sentenced him till the rising of the court.

This means the former minister has been disqualified from contesting elections for a period of five years.
“We are satisfied that the alleged contemnor has committed contempt of court within the meaning of Article 204 of the Constitution read with Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 and made himself liable for punishment.

“Thus, he is convicted and sentenced under Sections 3 and 5 of the Ordinance, 2003 and punished with imprisonment till the rising of the Court with fine of Rs.100,000,” says the order authored by Justice Gulzar Ahmad.

Talal was charged for delivering contemptuous speeches against the superior court judges. He urged PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif to oust ‘PCO idles’ from the apex court.

Earlier, the court had reserved the verdict on July 11. Talal spent imprisonment of two hours and five minutes in the courtroom.
Talal has been disqualified to contest elections for five years in view of his conviction in the contempt case.

He may file an Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) against the verdict, which would be heard by a five-judge larger bench of the apex court. Talal had already lost the recent election.

He is the third PML-N leader to be found in contempt of court in ongoing year. The other two leaders are: Nehal Hashmi and Daniyal Aziz.

“We have closely looked and examined the two transcripts of speeches made by the alleged contemnor and apparently find that such utterances of the alleged contemnor, amounted to abuse of Court and to scandalize the Court or tends to bring the Court or a Judge of the Court into hatred, ridicule or contempt within the meaning of Article 204 of the Constitution and further such contempt in terms of Section 18 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 was substantially detrimental to the administration of justice in that it scandalized the Court and tend to bring the Court or a Judge of the Court into a hatred or ridicule”

As regard the submission of the counsel for Talal that the Court ought to show judicial restraint, the court said that they have gone through the judgment cited by him and are of the view that these are not of much help to the alleged contemnor as the principle of judicial restraint is not a universal principle to be applied in each and every case as each and every case is based upon its own different facts, which in law are required to be dealt with in the peculiar facts and circumstances at their own case.

The order says that Talal in his two speeches as have been reproduced in order to show his unfaltering allegiance to Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, who as prime minister of Pakistan and was ousted from office by the judgment rendered by this court in the Panama case has uttered words seriously prejudicing the office of the chief justice of Pakistan and the judges of this court and ultimately the whole court as an institution and his utterances were not at all or within the ambit of the decency, morality and decorum but showed utter venom for which he himself has no cause of his own.

“The alleged contemnor in his two speeches has not only abused the judges of this court but has scandalised the court and did everything to bring the court into hatred, ridicule and contempt, which is substantially detrimental to the administration of justice and scandalizes the Court and tends to bring the Court and judges of the Court into hatred and ridicule.”

conferred the right of freedom of speech and expression and such right has been conferred in Article 19 of the Constitution, which is one of the fundamental right provided in Para-II of the Constitution.

“However, such freedom of speech and expression given to every citizen has been made subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with the foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of Court, [commission of] or incitement of an offence.

“Thus it is apparent that contempt of court is one of the law to which the fundamental right of every citizen to freedom of speech and expression has been subjected to.

“In exercising the fundamental right of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, if a citizen impinges upon and transgresses the reasonable restrictions of law of contempt of Court, he will make himself culpable and liable to be proceeded against under the contempt of court law,” the verdict reads.

The order says that the rationale of imposition of conditions on freedom of speech and expression as underlined by the Constitution itself is that the citizens while exercising such right have to maintain decency and decorum and not in a manner, which will infringe upon the rights of other citizens or transgress the mandate of law in relation to the working of state institutions.

“Further the rationale of making of law of contempt by the Constitution itself and by promulgation of the Ordinance is as a matter of public policy to secure the law of the land which it is the duty of the Court to uphold and to secure the judges and the Court from being scandalized into hatred or ridicule. The contempt law thus is meant basically to maintain the efficacy of the Courts of justice and to secure public confidence in the administration of justice.”

Senior lawyers are raising serious questions over the unfettered use of contempt of court powers against politicians in ongoing year.
They believe that courts cannot gain respect through punishment. The best way is to avoid adjudication of political cases. Likewise, the judiciary should also not interfere in executive and legislative affairs.

Source: Express Tribune