SC reserves verdict on contempt case against Awan

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment over a show-cause notice issued to Babar Awan, vice president of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and a senior lawyer, for his contemptuous address at a press conference against the court’s December 1, 2011 order on the memo case.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and Justice Ather Saeed heard the contempt of court case against Awan. Video footage of the press conference held by him along with other PPP leaders at the Press Information Department (PID) on December 1, 2011, were also screened in the courtroom.
During the hearing, Awan’s counsel Ali Zafar argued that in view of the video footage, his client had not given any remarks which ridiculed the judiciary. The court pointed out that the remarks were passed against the family of an apex court judge, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, during the press conference.
Zafar however said that his client in his statement had reconfirmed that he had utmost respect and regard for the judge and considered him to be a leading luminary, and that in case the judge had been hurt, Awan offered deepest regrets.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that Awan had expressed only regrets, but had not tendered an apology for passing remarks about the family of an SC judge. He said Awan was a popular lawyer as well as a politician therefore he should have respected the judiciary.
Zafar said that his client was accused of committing judicial contempt and in such proceedings the court was like a parent while the person accused of contempt was like an errant child, which was why courts worldwide use the power in exceptional circumstances and not as a way of punishment.
After hearing the arguments, the court reserved its judgment until March 8.
Earlier while submitting the written reply on behalf of Awan, Zafar said that Nawaz Sharif had called Supreme Court judges “Jayala Judges”, announced that “he would remove them by catching them from the ears”, and accused the chief justice of Pakistan of promoting “lotacracy”, yet the Supreme Court had not punished him for contempt on the ground that such statements were issued in tense times at a press conference, which unlike a written speech, was never premeditated but occurred on the spur of the moment.
He cited examples of several politicians, lawyers, authors, article writers and publishers against whom contempt proceedings were initiated. Zafar quoted Khan Abdul Wali Khan, who had alleged that the judiciary had “blackened its face”. He said that freedom of speech could not be barred in the name of freedom of judiciary.
He further said that senior lawyers like Akram Sheikh, Dr Basit, Khalid Anwar and others, all of which had allegedly committed serious contempt against the judiciary and even accused it of becoming political or dishonest, yet the Supreme Court had discharged contempt charges against all of them on the grounds that the freedom of expression was a fundamental right under which everyone was entitled to free speech and fair criticism, and that it was not the judiciary’s role to gag people.
Zafar quoted the famous principle: “Justice is not a cloistered virtue. She must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and outspoken comments of men,” and relied on the judgments of US, UK, Australian, New Zealand and Canadian Supreme Courts. He also pointed out that in the 200 years history of the US Supreme Court, only one contempt judgement been issued, and in the last 50 years in UK history, no contempt had been proceeded with any court.
He submitted that Babar Awan had held a conference of a political nature, which was directed against Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the opposition, and not against the judiciary.