Maulana KAUSAR NIAZI And Another vs MAHMOOD AZAM FAROOQI And 6 Other
This matter concerns three contempt of court applications filed against various public officials and media representatives, alleging that the publication of certain material was intended to influence the course of justice in a pending case before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the respondents, by broadcasting or telecasting specific content, committed contempt of court, and whether their subsequent apologies were sufficient to purge the contempt. The Court noted that the respondents had initially submitted a conditional apology but subsequently withdrew all defenses and tendered an unqualified and unconditional apology, both in writing and orally before the Court. Expressing satisfaction with the respondents' genuine contrition, the Court accepted the apologies and discharged the contempt notices. However, the Court emphasized the growing, concerning tendency to influence judicial proceedings through public utterances or powerful media instruments. It laid down the principle that public functionaries and all concerned must refrain from any actions that might hinder the smooth administration of justice, stressing that courts must be allowed to perform their functions freely to ensure the rule of law.
- Can an unconditional and unqualified apology purge contempt of court proceedings?
- Does the publication of material intended to influence pending judicial proceedings constitute contempt of court?
- What is the duty of public functionaries regarding the administration of justice and judicial proceedings?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C. J.--The allegation in these three contempt applications, is regarding publication of certain material which, according to the applicants, could have influenced the course of justice in a pending matter before this Court.
2. Notices were issued to the Chairman, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, Chairman, Pakistan Television Corporation, Director General, Radio Pakistan and Managing Director, Pakistan Television.
3. They are duly represented. Mr. Mahmood Azam Farooqi who was Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan, at the relevant the, another respondent has also submitted to the Court process and is represented by the same Advocate-on-Record who represents the aforementioned respondents. The learned counsel for the applicants have not pressed the application, against the remaining respondents.
4. While issuing notices to the respondents on 21st January, 1979, in presence of the then Attorney- General, his undertaking was noticed that the Pakistan Television and Radio Pakistan would not telecast/ broadcast the questioned programme during the pendency of the concerned matter. In view of this undertaking no interim order was passed. No complaint has been made from the petitioner-side regarding the conduct of the respondents during the ' pendency of these proceedings.
5. The aforementioned 4 respondents submitted their joint written statement in pursuance of the directions of this Court, which was prefixed with an apology but the same appears to us to be conditional. When pointed out to Mr. Aftab Ahmad Khan their learned counsel, he made a categorical statement that the defence, if any, made in the said written statement by way of condition or otherwise, is withdrawn and that instead they tender unqualified and unconditional apology. He further stated that they throw themselves at the mercy of the Court. Learned counsel further explained that they undertake not to repeat any at which might directly or indirectly influence or prejudice any Court proceedings. Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, the learned Advocate-- -on-Record for the said 4 respondents as also representing Mr. Muhammad Azam Farooqi has placed on record a fresh apology in writing which undoubtedly is unqualified and unconditional.
6. Qazi Said Ahmad one of the respondents present in Court has made a spontaneous submission as if representing the sentiments of the respondents that 'they have the highest regard for the Court and that the apology tendered by them is unqualified and sincere'.
7. After taking note of the unconditional and unqualified apologies as also the oral statement made in Court by one of the respondents we are satisfied that they have genuinely regretted their at and have expressed their sense of genuine contriteness. Thus, proper amends have been made.
8. We, therefore, accept the said unconditional apologies. It is, however, emphasised that it has been noticed by the Court with a sense of anguish that a tendency is growing to influence the course of judicial proceedings, directly or indirectly, through public utterances or through the instrumentality of powerful public media. Courts are an important organ of the State and their main function is to ameliorate the grievances in the field of law and justice. So as to let them perform their functions freely it is expected from all concerned and in particular the public functionaries to refrain from acting in any manner which might hinder the smooth administration of justice.
9. With these observations we discharge the notices.
10. M . B . A .Notice discharged.