Federation seeks review of contempt law judgment

The federation filed an appeal in the Supreme Court on Wednesday seeking a review of it order on the annulled Contempt of Court Act 2012.
Counsel for the federation Abdul Shakoor Paracha filed the appeal under Article 188 of the constitution, read with Order XXVI Rule 1 of the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules 1980, against the August 8 judgment. In the plea, it was contended that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the short order, had filed an instant petition seeking a review of the August 3 order on account of mistakes and errors apparent on the face of the record and also in view of other sufficient reasons mentioned below:
(i) The Supreme Court could not have proceeded to decide the constitution petitions on merit without disposing of the objections of the federation regarding its maintainability under Article 184(3). Only fundamental rights falling within the parameters of the constitution can be enforced.
(ii) the constitutionality of the impugned act could have been adjudged in appropriate contempt proceedings before the high court or before any of high court of any of the province. Contempt of Court Act 1976 and contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 were never declared unconstitutional. It has also been held in different cases that the courts do not indulge in academic exercise and on many occasions, the points have been left for determination in appropriate cases.
(iii) the petitions were not maintainable as they were not based upon any grievance or injury suffered by respondents.
(iv) the petitioners were not deprived of any of the fundamental right conferred by Chapter-I of Part 2 of the constitutions. They were based on speculation and apprehensions and in this eventuality there are sufficient grounds to recall the impugned orders on the mandate of Article 188 read with order XXVI Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980.
(v) the well established rule of interpretation is that constitution is to be read as a whole in order to ascertain the true intent and meaning of its various provisions.
“In the decision sought to be reviewed the provisions of the constitution have been read in isolation. This in itself is a gross error and mistake in the law,” the plea said.
The Supreme Court Rules deal with the contempt of court cases. Article 191 of the constitution states that, “Subject to the constitution and the law, the Supreme Court may make rules regulating the practice and procedure of the court. Likewise clause (3) of Article 204 is no different from Article 191 in its letter and spirit. Hence this court fell into a manifest error of law in holding Section 12 of COCA 2012 to be contrary to Article 204(3) of the constitution
(vi) COCA 2012 has been promulgated under Clause 3 of Article 204 of the constitution which confers power on the legislation, which confers power on the legislature to make law to regulate the exercise of power by the courts, and not to incorporate any substantive provision or defense.
(vii) that having regard to a bare perusal of Article 184(3) and other provisions of the constitution, such as, Article 204, Entry 55 to the fourth Schedule of the constitution, Article 284(1), Article 25, Article 239, Article 68 and Article 270AA of the constitution all the aforesaid findings rendered by this court are unconstitutional and void ab intio and these suffer from errors apparent in law and constitution. In fact the orders sought to be reviewed are beyond the jurisdiction of this court.
The petitioner requested the court to review the short order it had passed in the constitutional petition on August 3, and dismiss it accordingly.