PCO judges want contempt notice withdrawn
Attorney requests the court to release a detailed judgment and review its verdict before framing charges.
Dr Abdul Basit, counsel for the two judges Shabbar Raza Rizvi and Hasnat Ahmad Khan, filed the appeal in the Supreme Court under section 19 of the contempt of court ordinance, 2003.
He requested the court to first release a detailed judgment and to review its verdict before framing charges against the judges, on February 21.
On the basis of an affidavit submitted by the appellant, the counsel argued in the appeal that ‘there is sufficient evidence on record … that the restraint order was never communicated to them’ through the proper channel prior to their taking the oath.
He asked the court to withdraw the notice issued to the judges on October 5, 2009.
A four-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and comprising Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, Justice Tariq Parvez and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain, in its short order earlier this month had ruled that charges will be framed against PCO judges contesting the contempt of court cases on February 21 for defying the restraining order issued by a seven-member bench.
The Constitution does not extend immunity to judges [and] despite their honorable status as justices of the Supreme Court and the high courts, they have rendered themselves liable for the consequences, stated the judgment.
In response to the criminal petitions filed by Justices Hasnat Ahmad Khan and Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi for incriminating former president Pervez Musharraf, former prime minister Shaukat Aziz, Army Chief Parvez Kayani and corps commanders instrumental in proclaiming emergency on November 3, the bench observed that the case for contempt of court against these persons is materially different from the charges to be faced by the respondents.
Contempt alleged against these persons is primarily consequent to the proclamation of emergency, and the oath of office order 2007, which was an assault on the independence of the judiciary.
It appears, prima facie, that these instruments were issued prior to, and not in disobedience of, the order.
“No judge of the Supreme Court or the High Courts shall take oath under the PCO or any other extra-constitutional step,” read the November 3 order, the contravention of which invited contempt of court proceedings. After the judgment of July 31, the PCO judges were issued contempt of court notices. Nine PCO judges were found guilty of contempt of court, while the cases of others were deferred.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 15th, 2011.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ