Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on Wednesday said the constitution did not provide immunity to any public office-holder for contempt of court.
A five-member SC bench of Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Shakirullah Jan, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja and Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jilani was hearing more than 27 identical petitions challenging the Contempt of Court Act 2012 on Wednesday. The federation’s counsel Abdul Shakoor Paracha concluded his arguments before the bench. Submitting his arguments‚ Paracha said legislation was the prerogative of parliament which could not be challenged. He said the new contempt of court law did not in any way undermine the dignity of the judiciary, adding that doubting the intention of parliament was equivalent to doubting the intentions of the nation.
Paracha said parliament had the authority to grant immunity to anyone, adding that parliament could also legislate on the subject of immunity. “The constitution’s Article 204 refers to the powers of the judiciary,” Paracha added. He also said Yousaf Raza Gilani had been convicted by the court for contempt and that that could not become a precedent.
“The new contempt of court law was passed not to grant immunity to persons but to the steps taken by public office-holders in line of duty,” Paracha said. The chief justice remarked that the law said that a few people were exempted from contempt of court no matter what they said in court, adding that parliament introduced a law while the judiciary elucidated it. He said if someone used contemptuous language against the judiciary and then said his intention was not bad, how he could be pardoned.
He further argued how could one prime minister be punished for not writing the letter to Swiss authorities while the other was left untouched. “Those found guilty of the contempt will be punished, and there is no categorization in this regard,” he remarked. During the proceedings, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja said parliament should work within its jurisdiction, adding that it could not intervene in the legislative matters of the provinces. Meanwhile, Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jilani said a law passed by simple majority could not violate the spirit of the constitution. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry said parliamentarians who were involved in the contempt of the court case would face a reference under Article 63-C1. The bench later adjourned the hearing until today (Thursday) when Attorney General Irfan Qadir is expected to present his arguments.
Only he is immune in this land of pure
What about ur son cj how he made quick money so fast he is also imune
@awan. Hey retard. Learn to read, write and speak english before you you expose your stupidity. Read what he said "Public Office Holder". Is his son a public office holder? I am becoming convinced by the day that you are really an offspring of a cross between a baboon and a howler monkey.
@awan. How many times do I have to tell you to not write comments that show you ignorance? CJ said "Public Office Holders". Is his son a public office holder? I am really starting to believe that you have some baboon's blood in you. Now stay away from the inetrnet untill you learn to read, write and speak english so you people won't laugh at you.
These are ignorant jialys. they dont understand the basics of law but comment on judicial wisdom of the judges.
then why not try sadre mohtram for his political,partisan role against constitution,his oath of office.you are your blind eye to his voilaTION FOR YEARS NOW AND NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND IT.aRE YOU PROTECTING HIM?
Why should the utterences of CJ be reported like a public office holder? This is unique.CJ also has a PRO which is also unique.Supreme Court proceedings should not be reported the way it is being done now.One is really amazed to see such statements comming from a sitting CJ.It damages the sanctity of the highest court of the country. Are the lawyers immune to prosecution? Some body needs to answer this.Preferably Mr.Chaudery himself.
Are the lawyers immune to prosecution?CJ to please clarify.
Comments are closed.