FCC rules it can initiate contempt cases

Court says Article 204 is self-executory

ISLAMABAD:

The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that it possesses the authority to initiate contempt of court proceedings under the existing constitutional framework.

In a 13-page judgement authored by Justice Aamer Farooq in a contempt matter, the court observed that the FCC possesses the authority to initiate, adjudicate, or otherwise entertain contempt of court proceedings under the existing constitutional framework, despite the absence of any express reference to this Court in the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003.

"We hold that it does. This power flows directly from Articles 204 and 189 of the Constitution, 1973. In any event, this court is of the considered view that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in its constitutional character and essential to the effective discharge of its functions."

During proceedings before an FCC division bench, headed by Justice Aamer Farooq, it was argued that although the term "Federal Constitutional Court" was inserted into Article 204(1) of the Constitution, the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 does not recognise the FCC as a superior court. Therefore, it was contended, the court lacks jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings.

Rejecting the argument, the judgement held that Article 204 is a self-executory provision and does not require prior or simultaneous legislative enactment for the exercise or regulation of the powers it confers.

"The jurisdiction flows directly from the Constitution and is complete in its essential contours. While Parliament may, under Article 204(4), regulate the manner of its exercise, the absence of such legislation does not impede or suspend the Court's authority. The provision is, therefore, capable of standing on its own force, without the necessity of supplementary statutory aid," the court observed.

The judgement further emphasised the court's role within the constitutional framework, stating:

"Any legislative or executive action is open to scrutiny through judicial review by the courts. This Court thus holds a unique position as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution."

Raising a key question, the court asked if its orders or judgments can be permitted to remain unimplemented. "The answer is unquestionably in the negative. If any individual disobeys the orders or judgments of this court, such conduct attracts the exercise of contempt powers under Article 204, which operates independently of any statutory enactment, thereby rendering this authority inherent in the judicial structure itself."

The court underscored that the authority to initiate contempt proceedings is essential for ensuring effective functioning and is intrinsically linked with judicial independence.

"Litigants approach courts for the resolution of their disputes, and it is the courts that adjudicate and settle those matters. Access to justice, intertwined with the independence of the judiciary, reflects public confidence in the judicial system. Where court orders are not implemented, or judicial pronouncements are disregarded as though cast into thin air, firm and uncompromising action becomes imperative.

"No leniency can be afforded on this score. At the same time, a note of caution is necessary: this power should be used sparingly and only in serious cases. Courts should not be unduly sensitive or overzealous in discovering new forms of contempt, as its usefulness depends on the wisdom and restraint with which it is exercised," the judgement stated.