A petition challenging the vires of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 promulgated by then president Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf was filed in the Supreme Court on Monday.
The petition was filed by Shahid Orakzai under Article 184 (3), making the federation through the Law Ministry respondent.
The petitioner requested the court that for the supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law – as perceived by the constitution than by a military general – all contempt proceedings, both in its original and appellate jurisdictions, be suspended until a ruling on the impugned ordinance came.
He said the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 was issued by Musharraf in clear breach of Clause (2) of Article 89 read with the Federal Legislative List. He requested the court to declare that sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 as well as the classifications of contempt in other sections were ultra vires of the constitution. He said parliament was duty bound to make a law under Clause (d) of Article 204 that abided by Entry 55 of the Federal Legislative List as for the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and regulates than negate the letter and spirit of Article 204.
“Whether a person who in November 2007 locked up the judges of the apex court in their constitutional homes and rest houses, together with their children, by “use of force” as mentioned in Article 6, can, under Article 89, impose a law on the “whole of Pakistan”? He said he wanted to know whether the Supreme Court can accept the meanings (or definitions) of the words “Contempt of Court” as written by an Artillery Officer of Pakistan Army (Gen Musharraf). He said the Ordinance is in conflict with Article 204 and it cannot regulate the exercise of powers of the Supreme Court as given in the said Article. He said the ordinance gave a free hand to every lawyer to commit all sorts of fouls to win an acquittal for a criminal and, if caught on the wrong
foot, tender an apology at any stage without ever admitting contempt of court. He said he had already stated before a seven-member special bench of the SC that the acquittal of the prime minister would be against the constitution and the law, though it was flawed.
