Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry on Monday said the court’s powers could not be curtailed with any step of the parliament while rejecting the federation’s plea for formation of full court to hear the petitions against the recently passed contempt of court law, and directed the petitioners to complete their arguments by today (Tuesday).
But a remark made by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry might have jolted the Presidency that said that under Article 248 of the constitution, no one enjoyed “blanket cover of immunity” and the immunity was only restricted to the official business.
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Chaudhry, Justice Shakirullah Jan, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain, Justice Jawad S Khawaja and Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani heard the petitions challenging amendments to the contempt law. The federation was being represented by Justice (r) Abdul Shakoor Paracha. Paracha submitted that the notice issued to him said of only 16 petitions; however, he has just come to know that 26 petitions were pending before the court over the issue. Hence, a full court should hear the case instead of five-judge bench. He also requested that due to its significance, the case should be heard by the full court and that the federation should be given a time of one to two weeks over the petitions against the contempt law.
Responding to Paracha’s request, the chief justice said that the court had already given ample time to the federation, adding that the issue was significant and a decision over it was important.
Moreover, Attorney General Irfan Qadir requested the court for a period of two weeks. He said that a case such as the one against the contempt of court law had not been heard in the country’s history.
Justice Iftikhar said that a case of similar nature had been heard in the court in 1996 by a four-judge bench headed by Mian Ajmal Abbasi, the then chief justice of the Supreme Court. The attorney general read out the 1996 bench’s ruling and said that contempt of court laws have been evolving in several parts of the world. Also during the hearing, counsel for petitioner Baz Muhammad Kakar argued that the judiciary’s independence was guaranteed in the preamble to the constitution.
Upon which, Justice Jilani said that contempt of court laws were an extension of the concept of rule of law. He moreover said that as long as system of justice prevailed, laws pertaining to contempt of court would continue to exist. The chief justice said that only constitutionally valid changes could be made in the law regarding contempt of court.
The chief justice further said no act by the parliament can slash the jurisdiction of the judiciary, elaborating that some measures mentioned in 1973 Constitution were exempted from the definition of contempt of court. However, this exemption was abolished with the 18th Amendment, he added. Subsequently, the court directed the petitioners to conclude their arguments by Tuesday and adjourned the hearing. The contempt of court law had been hurriedly passed by the ruling government in a bid to protect the incumbent prime minister from facing the same fate as his predecessor.
The law exempts “holders of public office” from the mischief of contempt in “exercise of powers and performance of functions” and allows for suspension of a sentence during the pendency of an appeal. The main opposition party in the National Assembly, the PML-N, had objected to the passage of the law saying it was not sent to relevant standing committees for deliberations.
The petitions: In all, there are 26 petitions against the act and one of the petitioners, Baz Muhammad Kakar, contends that Section 3(i) of the new act curtailed the power and jurisdiction of the court under Article 204(2) of the constitution to punish ‘any person’ who abused, interfered with or obstructed the process of the court in any way or disobeyed any order of the court.
It also violated Article 25 which guaranteed equal protection of the laws, he said. A petition filed on behalf of the Save Judiciary Movement by Advocate Hashmat Habib pleads that the law should be struck down because it goes against the Quran and Sunnah and that the Contempt of Court Ordinance of 2003 be restored.
Justice Jawad S Khawaja remarked that all petitioners in 26 petitions have requested the court to set aside the Contempt of Court Act 2012 except the plea of Pakistan Bar Council.
Justice Tassaduq Jillani remarked that he was concerned about the administration of justice, adding, “If our judgements are not regarded, how would the administration of justice be possible?” During proceedings, the chief justice remarked that the contempt of court law could only be changed within the limits of article 204 of the constitution. Petitioners Ikram Chaudhry, M Zafar, Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi also completed their arguments with regard to the amendments to the contempt of court law.