Malik MUHAMMAD JAFFAR, Advocate vs KARACHI BAR ASSOCIATION
This matter arises from a petition challenging a judgment of the Sindh High Court dated 7-2-1988, which answered a reference made in a contempt application filed by the Karachi Bar Association under Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan concerning speeches delivered by members of the National Assembly and the Senate on 29-11-1976. The core legal question referred to the Full Bench was whether such speeches enjoy absolute privilege under the Constitution and rules framed thereunder, rendering them immune from contempt of court proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the contempt application involved three persons, out of whom notices against two had been discharged by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, and the counsel was unable to satisfy the Court as to whether the High Court intended to proceed further against the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner may seek further orders from the High Court regarding his status and noted that an adequate remedy of appeal is available before the Supreme Court in the event of a final conviction for contempt. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
- Whether under the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan and the rules framed thereunder the speeches of the Members of the National Assembly enjoy absolute privilege and are not amenable to Contempt of Court proceedings?
- Can a petitioner maintain a petition against an intermediate proceeding when notices against co-respondents have been discharged and no final order of conviction has been passed?
- Article 204, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
ORDER
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---An application was filed by the Karachi Bar Association in the High Court of Sindh, under Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in which it was averred that during the course of discussions on a Bill in the National Assembly and the Senate on 29-11-1976, some speeches were delivered by various members of the National Assembly and the Senate which amount to contempt of Court. The following question was referred to the Full Bench of the High Court for its opinion: "Whether under 1973 Constitution of Pakistan and the rules framed thereunder the speeches of the Members of the National Assembly enjoy absolute privilege and are not amenable to Contempt of Court proceedings?"
2. The question was answered in Para 15 of the judgment passed by the Sindh High Court on 7-2- 1988. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contempt application had been made against three persons, namely, Malik Muhammad Akhtar, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada and the present petitioner. A learned Single Judge of the High Court had discharged notices against Malik Muhammad Akhtar and Abdul Hafeez Pirzada. The learned counsel is unable to satisfy us whether the High Court wants to proceed against the petitioner under the Contempt of Court Act. As he himself says that the High Court has already discharged notices against two other persons, the petitioner may seek further orders from the High Court on this aspect. In case the petitioner is convicted of Contempt of Court, he has a remedy to appeal to this Court against the final order.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.