Harsher sentences: SC to re-interpret contempt law
Hears case relating to roughing up of ex-CJP Iftikhar Chaudhry
PHOTO: AFP
ISLAMABAD:
As the clash between the executive and judiciary intensified, the Supreme Court on Monday vocalised its intention to re-interpret the contempt law, paving the way for awarding harsher sentences to individuals found guilty of disrespecting the courts.
“We may interpret Article 204 in a way that the punishment awarded to a contemnor would continue till he purges before the court”, remarked Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar during the hearing of an 11-year-old contempt case about the manhandling of former chief justice of the Supreme Court Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry by police on March 13, 2007.
All SC judges to quit if democracy ambushed: CJP
The three-judge bench, headed by the CJP himself, noted that under the Contempt Ordinance of 2003, the maximum punishment was a six-month prison term, but the court would examine Article 204 of the Constitution for awarding harsher punishment to contemnors.
Article 204 states that a Court shall have power to punish any person who
Legal experts are giving much weight to the CJP’s observation as contempt cases against a number of political leaders such as Daniyal Aziz, Talal Chaudhry and Faisal Raza Abidi are pending.
There was a possibility the court might opt to send anyone to jail for an indefinite period.
During the hearing of the Election Act of 2017 case, the same bench referred Article 5 of the Constitution and observed that ridiculing the judiciary amounted to disobeying the Constitution.
“Loyalty to the state means loyalty to its basic organs, including judiciary. Similarly, a breach of loyalty with state institutions will be disobedience to the Constitution,” the CJP ruled on February 6 while hearing petitions against the Elections Act, 2017.
Meanwhile, former CJP Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry refused to pardon officials who tendered unconditional apology in the manhandling case.
Sheikh Ahsan advocate quoted the former chief justice as saying that this was not a personal issue and the institution’s prestige was at stake. The court, Chaudhry stated, should decide the matter in accordance with the law.
The court is hearing contempt case against Inspector-General Police Chaudhry Iftikhar Ahmad, Senior Superintendent, Islamabad, Captain (retd) Zafar Iqbal, Chief Commissioner Khalid Pervaiz, Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad, Mohammad Ali Jamil, DSP Hashmi, SHO Rukhsar Mehdi and Security Guard to IG Siraj Ahmad. All of the accused attended the proceedings along with their lawyers.
On Monday, the bench decided to watch the video clip in which the officers involved allegedly mishandled Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
The CJP assured the officials that they would be given ample opportunity to defend themselves.
The case was later adjourned till May 14.
Nawaz, Maryam continue rant against judiciary
Appeals were moved against the Supreme Court order which sentenced Islamabad’s senior administration officials and police officers for roughing up the former chief justice, preventing him from marching towards the apex court to respond to the allegation of misuse of office before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
However, action on the sentence was soon suspended for 15 days on the request of convicts, allowing them to file appeals against the convictions.
Former Islamabad chief commissioner Khalid Pervaiz and deputy commissioner Chaudhry Mohammad Ali were sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court, former IGP Chaudhry Iftikhar Ahmed and SSP Capt (retd) Zafar Iqbal were sentenced to 15 days in jail and deputy superintendent of police Jamil Hashmi, inspector Rukhsar Mehdi and ASI Mohammad Siraj were awarded one-month prison term.
Later a 10-member bench barred the authorities concerned from taking any action against the appellants till appeals were decided.
As the clash between the executive and judiciary intensified, the Supreme Court on Monday vocalised its intention to re-interpret the contempt law, paving the way for awarding harsher sentences to individuals found guilty of disrespecting the courts.
“We may interpret Article 204 in a way that the punishment awarded to a contemnor would continue till he purges before the court”, remarked Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar during the hearing of an 11-year-old contempt case about the manhandling of former chief justice of the Supreme Court Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry by police on March 13, 2007.
All SC judges to quit if democracy ambushed: CJP
The three-judge bench, headed by the CJP himself, noted that under the Contempt Ordinance of 2003, the maximum punishment was a six-month prison term, but the court would examine Article 204 of the Constitution for awarding harsher punishment to contemnors.
Article 204 states that a Court shall have power to punish any person who
- abuses, interferes with or obstructs the process of the Court in any way or disobeys any order of the Court;
- scandalizes the Court or otherwise does anything which tends to bring the Court or a Judge of the Court into hatred, ridicule or contempt;
- does anything which tends to prejudice the determination of a matter pending before the Court; or
- does any other thing which, by law, constitutes contempt of the Court. The exercise of the power conferred on a Court by this Article may be regulated by law and, subject to law, by rules made by the Court.
Legal experts are giving much weight to the CJP’s observation as contempt cases against a number of political leaders such as Daniyal Aziz, Talal Chaudhry and Faisal Raza Abidi are pending.
There was a possibility the court might opt to send anyone to jail for an indefinite period.
During the hearing of the Election Act of 2017 case, the same bench referred Article 5 of the Constitution and observed that ridiculing the judiciary amounted to disobeying the Constitution.
“Loyalty to the state means loyalty to its basic organs, including judiciary. Similarly, a breach of loyalty with state institutions will be disobedience to the Constitution,” the CJP ruled on February 6 while hearing petitions against the Elections Act, 2017.
Meanwhile, former CJP Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry refused to pardon officials who tendered unconditional apology in the manhandling case.
Sheikh Ahsan advocate quoted the former chief justice as saying that this was not a personal issue and the institution’s prestige was at stake. The court, Chaudhry stated, should decide the matter in accordance with the law.
The court is hearing contempt case against Inspector-General Police Chaudhry Iftikhar Ahmad, Senior Superintendent, Islamabad, Captain (retd) Zafar Iqbal, Chief Commissioner Khalid Pervaiz, Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad, Mohammad Ali Jamil, DSP Hashmi, SHO Rukhsar Mehdi and Security Guard to IG Siraj Ahmad. All of the accused attended the proceedings along with their lawyers.
On Monday, the bench decided to watch the video clip in which the officers involved allegedly mishandled Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
The CJP assured the officials that they would be given ample opportunity to defend themselves.
The case was later adjourned till May 14.
Nawaz, Maryam continue rant against judiciary
Appeals were moved against the Supreme Court order which sentenced Islamabad’s senior administration officials and police officers for roughing up the former chief justice, preventing him from marching towards the apex court to respond to the allegation of misuse of office before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
However, action on the sentence was soon suspended for 15 days on the request of convicts, allowing them to file appeals against the convictions.
Former Islamabad chief commissioner Khalid Pervaiz and deputy commissioner Chaudhry Mohammad Ali were sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court, former IGP Chaudhry Iftikhar Ahmed and SSP Capt (retd) Zafar Iqbal were sentenced to 15 days in jail and deputy superintendent of police Jamil Hashmi, inspector Rukhsar Mehdi and ASI Mohammad Siraj were awarded one-month prison term.
Later a 10-member bench barred the authorities concerned from taking any action against the appellants till appeals were decided.