‘Vilifying’ judiciary: PTI files contempt plea against Rafique

Local leader says SC can initiate proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution

ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on Monday filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court against Minister for Railways Khawaja Saad Rafique for ‘scandalising and ridiculing’ the Supreme Court judges after their July 28 verdict which disqualified Nawaz Sharif as prime minister.

The petition was filed by PTI’s Lahore Cantt President Awais Younas under Article 204 of the Constitution requesting the top court to initiate contempt proceedings against the federal minister.

The petitioner, through his counsel Shoaib Shaheen, has referred to Rafique’s July 30 news conference in which he ‘criticised’ the judiciary.



“The respondent is found in using contemptuous and abusive language against the judges in the press conference, which was carried out for a preconceived motive to trash the judiciary’s image in the minds of the general public.

"Hence the conduct of the respondent [Saad Rafique] is contemptuous and deserves to be checked by this apex court by way of awarding of appropriate punishment to the respondent,” says the petition.

The petitioner has also contended that accusing the judges of being involved in a conspiracy and terming the judgment a matter of revenge clearly amount to scandalising the court.

“It is in the public interest that confidence should exist in Court of Justice and if an attack is made upon a judge, who is not in a position to answer the attack, the authority and the prestige of the judge tends to be lowered in the public and is contrary to the interest of the public,” says the petition.



It is also stated that it is an established principle of law that comments criticising the court’s decision are permissible if they are and made in good faith and in temperate language, do not impugn the integrity or impartiality of the judge. It adds that the comments also have to be made after the period of appeal, revision or review has expired or until any such proceedings have been closed.

The petition submits, “In the instant case, the respondent has attacked on the honourable judges and no fair comments have been rendered on the judgments passed by this Court. Hence, the respondent is liable to be proceeded for contempt of court.”

The petitioner also says that, in view of this, he has no other alternate except to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the court under Article 204 of the constitution.