IN RE: CONTEMPT AGAINST TUFAIL AHMAD KHAN vs NOT
This matter concerns contempt of court proceedings initiated against the respondent, Tufail Muhammad Khan, following his submission of an application to the President of Pakistan and other high officials. The application contained allegations of partiality, favoritism, and intentional misreading of records against a Supreme Court judge who had authored a judgment in the respondent's case. The core legal question was whether the respondent's actions constituted contempt of court and whether his subsequent unconditional apology, coupled with evidence of his mental distress at the time of the incident, warranted discharge of the contempt notice. The Court held that, given the respondent's unconditional apology, his expression of sincere regret, and medical evidence confirming his perturbed mental state at the time of the offense, the apology should be accepted. The Court discharged the contempt notice, establishing the principle that an unconditional apology, when tendered in true contrition and supported by mitigating circumstances such as mental health issues, may be accepted to purge contempt, provided the court is satisfied with the sincerity of the contemnor.
- Can an unconditional apology be accepted to purge contempt of court?
- Does a perturbed mental state at the time of the offense serve as a mitigating factor in contempt proceedings?
- Is a contempt notice liable to be discharged when the contemnor admits the allegations were baseless and expresses sincere regret?
- Order XVII, Supreme Court Rules 1980
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- The respondent, Tufail Muhammad Khan, was issued a notice under Order XVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of Court on account of his insolence in addressing an application, dated 15-8-1983 to the President of Pakistan with copies to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Federal Law Minister and Mohtasib-e-Aala containing words and statements which tended to scandalise the Court and to bring it into contempt. In this application, the respondent had attributed partiality, favouritism and intentional misreading of the record to favour Mst. Mubarika Begum, the opponent of Tufail Muhammad Khan, in the petition for leave to appeal filed by him in this Court, to the Author Judge of the judgment written for the Bench of three Judges hearing the said petition.
2. ' In his reply submitted in response to this notice, the respondent has submitted that he "never intended to scandalise any authority, not to speak of highest judiciary members for whom the applicant (respondent herein) has due regard and respect and can never dream of any partiality nor any doubt or suspicion about their integrity or fairness".
3. ' He went on to add that "the remarks of favouritism and partiality against Hon'ble Judge, who had written the judgment in his case, were unconsciously passed by him without any intention to disgrace or demoralise him". He then submitted that "the inadvertant mistake is deeply regretted" and went on to add:- "I unconditionally tender my apology with the request that I am an old man, ailing and retired public servant. I shall be excused for my unwanted and uncalled for commissions or omissions." ' and prayed that "it is very earnestly requested that the learned Judge may kindly be pleased to accept the apology".
4. ' When the case came up for hearing today, the respondent was present in person and besides reiterating the contents of the reply submitted in response to the notice of contempt also made a statement on oath, wherein he stated that he was suffering from mental distress and had been receiving treatment from Dr.K.Zaki Hasan, a Psychiatrist and Neuro Surgeon for some time. He also placed on record a certificate issued by the said Doctor in support of the above statement. He further submitted that he was now feeling better and explained that the letter dated 15-8-1983 was written by him on account of his earlier perturbed mental condition and that the contents of the said letter were neither true nor based on any reality, but were imaginary actuated by the mental distress, to which he was subject at the time. He, accordingly, prayed that he may be pardoned by this Court. In his statement before us he also stated that his apology and the plea of pardon was not made because of fear of punishment but on account of fear of God Almighty and the esteem he entertained for this Court and that it was being submitted in true contrition. He also said that he was ashamed of what was done by him and he sincerely regretted the same. He again begged for mercy and pardon from this Court. The circumstances regarding respondent's mental condition stand confirmed also by a communication received from his wife at an earlier stage.
5. In view of the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent Tufail Muhammad Khan and keeping in view of his mental health and unbalanced perturbed mind at the time when he submitted the application dated 15-8-1983 containing the allegations which it is admitted by him are baseless and scandalous, we are, in view of the afore narrated circumstances inclined to accept the apology and pardon the respondent.
6. ' The notice of contempt is, therefore, discharged.
7. Contemnor pardoned.