SC indicts Talal Chaudhry in contempt case

Rejects his plea not to indict in view of stigma attached with framing of charges

ISLAMABAD: A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court has indicted the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader and Federal Minister Talal Chaudhry for allegedly committing contempt of court.

The SC bench, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, on Thursday gave a charge sheet to Chaudhry, who denied the contempt allegations and pleaded not guilty.

Earlier, Kamran Murtaza, counsel for Chaudhry, requested the bench to show restraint and consider the SC recent decisions not to initiate contempt proceedings against deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif, Punjab Chief Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Railways Minister Saad Rafique.

He requested the bench to give him time to file certified copies of all these orders, arguing that indictment will be a big stigma for Chaudhry, who is a young parliamentarian. However, the SC turned down his plea and observed that indictment is not a stigma as scores of people have been indicted.



The bench later assured that if Talal Chaudhry is able to convince the court, he will not be convicted. Justice Khan also observed that the court does not want convict just for the sake of contempt. Hearing of case was later adjourned till March 26.

Various ruling party leaders are facing contempt of court allegations and in the ongoing week the apex court has also indicted Daniyal Aziz, another cabinet member, for giving of statements against superior judiciary.

The court has also rejected former senator Nihal Hashmi’s reply and decided to frame charge against him in a second contempt case for using abusive language against the judges after his release from Adiala Jail last month. Hashmi has already been convicted in one contempt case.

However, in this week, the apex court has also dismissed some contempt petitions against Nawaz Sharif, Shehbaz and Saad Rafique. These petitions were filed by Sheikh Ahsan and Mahmood Akkhtar Naqvi.

While rejecting these petitions, a three-judge bench – headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar – noted that the material provided by petitioners is not enough to initiate contempt proceedings.

However, it observed that the court may initiate contempt proceedings against respondents on an appropriate time. After retirement of former CJP Iftikhar Chaudhry, it is the first time the apex court has initiated contempt proceedings against parliamentarians.

This has also sparked a debate as to whether the use of contempt of court provision can help in upholding dignity of courts or does it work as a deterrence for maintaining the respect of judiciary.

During Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s era, the judiciary had initiated rather controversial contempt proceedings against judges, parliamentarians, senior officials and journalists. However, no one was convicted on charge of disrespecting the court during his tenure.

It has also been witnessed that the use of contempt power has been widely criticised by international media with some lawyers urging the court to carefully use contempt powers as their judgments will be remembers in history.

The Pakistan Bar Council member Akhtar Hussain said the court while excising contempt proceedings should show restraint. The SC should only initiate contempt proceedings over the non-implementation of its orders. However, the same power should not be used over the unwarranted comments, he added.

Another renowned lawyer Babar Sattar in his article questioned if it was not a conflict of interest inherent in judges evaluating criticism of judges.

“The Judicial Code of Conduct says that ‘a judge must decline resolutely to act in a case involving his own interest.’ Two basic principles of fairness recited in courts daily are that, ‘no one can be a judge in his own cause’, and that ‘justice is not just to be done but also seen to be done’. But our jurisprudence suggests that these principles are somehow not attracted when it comes to judicial contempt,” he said.

Sattar said conviction of contempt attracts a jail term of up to six months. But our courts have held that jurisdiction in the matter of contempt is not criminal but sui generis, ie, unique.



“Consequently, the foundational principles of criminal law (that penalties against an accused are to be strictly construed, that the accused must be given benefit of doubt, that mens rea must exist to make an act criminal, and that onus of proof rests on the prosecution) aren’t attracted when it comes to contempt. Such exceptional treatment re-emphasises the underlying conflict,” he added.