ISLAMABAD: Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, while hearing petitions against the new contempt law, remarked that this law was an attempt at granting immunity to the elite class, Express News reported on Tuesday.
He made this statement during the second hearing of the case comprising petitions against the contempt law.
Earlier, during the first hearing, the counsel for the federation had sought time from the Supreme Court of Pakistan as it began hearing 27 petitions challenging the Contempt of Court Act, saying that the case was of high importance.
The bench hearing the cases is headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and includes Justices Shakirullah Jan, Tasadduq Jilani, Jawwad S Khawaja and Khilji Arif.
The controversial legislation – which has been termed a ‘black law’ by the opposition – is aimed at shielding the new premier from contempt proceedings similar to those that led to Yousaf Raza Gilani’s ouster from the country’s top office.
The federal cabinet approved the bill on July 4 after which President Asif Ali Zardari, who has 30 days to sign any bill after approval by both houses of parliament, did not waste much time and put his signature on the draft after overnight passage by the Senate on July 12.
COMMENTS (49)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1713281138-0/US-Treasury-Secretary-Janet-Yellen-(2)1713281138-0-270x192.webp)
@ Umar first let me inform you that in England no body even knows the name chief justice No court ever tried to go against the will of the parliament Wherever it disapproved of a law.thebgovernment changed the law all laws passed by British parliament are eventually referred to house of lords,the ultimate legal body .it can send the bill back twice but third time it will become law even if rejected by house of lord Thre are day to day tussles in house of lord against and in favour of legislation e.g recent health reform bill, university fees bill so supreme court or its equivalent are bound to accept all laws made by parliament
the Pakistani judiciary is criticised by all jurists all over the world except a few lawyers belonging to PMLN and PTI Even in Pakistan many lawyers are openly criticising the misbehaviour of the courts ,because chief justice was not quickly re instated by ZARDARI ,heis targeting ZARDARI who is president of all Pakistan All leaders of Ppp agree that the letter will be written when he is no longer president THIS IS BEING DONE CIRCUMVENTING THE USUAL COURSE OF LAW
@Logic Europe:
What excesses are the judges guilty of? trying to get an implementation of a ruling of the highest court?
The court is not fixated with one issue, they media may be. So by your standard they should just leave it as they would be seen to be biased, very funny. Follow that trend and the courts will have no power to enforce the law.
You say you have worked in the UK court system, bring me an example where the UK government has refused or ignored a superior courts order.
Stop defending the corrupt to the core politician; There is no justification of providing them or anyone else blanket immunity from prosecution.
@Umar
Above is the quote from the BBC site you kindly provided. It means that question of immunity falls in the jurisdiction of Bundestag, and in our context means that allegations do not automatically anull article 248 of our Constitution. It is still upto our Parliament to decide and not any judge. That was precisely my point. No further comments ftom me.
@White Russian:
Get your facts right ...
On the 16 Feb The prosecution requested that his immunity be lifted
check http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17068334 and http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/world/europe/president-wulffs-immunity-challenged-in-germany.html
and the very next day he resigns
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/17/german-president-christian-wulff-resigns1
You say he clinged to power, for how long exactly? the scandal broke in Jan 2012
I have lived over 20 years in the UK and now living in US and can tell you that whilst the politicians in europe and US may not be of the highest moral standards they do not cling to power once their credibility has been questions and party members don't line up in droves to defend them as is the case in PK.
I don't have any political goal that I would use Judges or Military; The judges are doing their duty for once and I will continue to commend them.
@Umar: Yes, German president did hide behind the immunity as long as he could. Yes, Angela Merkel, the Chancellor, and her cabinet defended their president as long as they could.
Neither judges, nor opposition ever insisted that they wanted to presecute the president while in office, and nobody touched him till the moment he was president. Moreover, he is still a free man, and never went to jail without having proven anything against him unlike Mr Zardari, who spent the whole sharif and mush era in the jail. I hope you now see the difference.
I also want to break the myth that politicians in west are driven by moral motives. Presifdent Wulff resigned not because of moral reasons. He clinged to the seat as long as he could. It was only when Angela Merkel understood that political damage (i.e negative votes in next general election) would be enormous that she signalled Wulff to resign. Now if Pakistan's opposition is so impotent as to build sufficient political pressure, and for this purpose looking towards judges (in past they appealed to generals backing 58-2b armed presidency), it is not my fault. As for Zardari, either politically force him to leave, and then go for his blood afterwards. But please do not use judges or generals to for your political goals.
@White Russian:
Why did the German President resign? did he hide behind the immunity as in the case of Mr Zardari? Did ministers and party members of the same come on electronic media and say that regardless of whether he is guilty he can't be touched because he has immunity? I don't think so.
The contempt of court law provides no immunity to judges, there is a process to complain against a judge and a defendant can request to change the panel. Does the contempt law need to change? probably does, however not in the malafide manner of the current law.
Every individual should have the right to criticize and question the judges and their judgements, however they should not be allowed to ridicule and/or defy the judgements of the courts. The contempt of court again Gillani was not for criticizing the courts, it was for defying it's orders.
The countries you give example of, including Germany have elected members with much higher moral values and standards where a minister would resign even for a minor failure attributed to his/her portfolio. Whereas in Pakistan those responsible for major crisis find no remorse or obligation for correction let alone resignation. We have a law and order crisis and have the most incompetent person heading the interior ministry in a country like Germany he would have resigned before being asked to resign.
@khan: Pakistan is run under its own constitution which does not allow criminal proceedings against our President. Nixon was president, not of Pakistan but of US, having their own constitution which gives no such immunity to their president.
If you were unbiased you would have given more relevant and more recent example of Christian Wulff, former German president, who resigned a few months ago after some financial scandals unearthed. As long as he was occupying German presidency, no proceedings against him could be initiated according to the immunity granted to German President. Prosecutors openly answered the journalsts, by saying that if German media is so keen on bringing President to the docks, they should first appeal to bundestag (german parliament) to revoke the immunity. That Mr Wulff was forced to resign is testimony to the strength of their political system. That our current president and her slain wife were periodically castigated, and periodically allowed to come into power throughout 1990s and 2010s is testimony to the selective, biased, and political nature of our judicial system.
By the way why there is contempt of court concept anyway? Is not it some kind of immunity given to the judges, in order to perform their duties smoothly? Why our judges are so keen on using their immunity to the extent of unseating a PM, but would not allow the immunity clearly given to President?
@Mirza: the point is that Nixon being the president of the country was not able to stop the investigation of water gate where as government of Pakistan is saying we can not investigate Mr. Zardari because he is the president which is wrong further more Pakistan’s constitution allows supreme court to take Suo moto action in the interest of the country and I think it is time that we prove that no one is above law.
And there goes judiciary bashers....most of them just oppose for the sake of opposition......
Oh ... thanks for letting us know ... BTW on which car does he come to office daily ?
But sorry Jawwad saheb, you are also a member of this socalled Elite class. How many times you and yours elite class decisions have helped in any way for the betterment the working and middle class and strengthening democracy in Pakistan. Your elite class has always supported the dictatorship. Think many times before you you say so mething, Because youare the judges of apex court, unfortunately. Live with love-Let democracy work
Rehman Malik is again back in senate; what is the enforcement of law in this regard?
@khan: No US president including Nixon and Clinton were tried in a court. They were tried or going to be tried by the House and Senate which are the only place where the president can be impeached. Nixon resigned when he was sure about his own party members would vote for his impeachment. Clinton was impeached only by the House and not the Senate. As Nixon was responsible for a break-in, he could have been tried by a court after his resignation. However, he was pardoned by his successor Ford. Neither of these two presidents or any other was ever tried by any court while a sitting president or even after his term. Clinton had several cases dating way back before his presidency but no court tried to re-activate them during his term or even after that. Once again a US president cannot be tried in any court except by the elected House and Senate for rebuke or impeachment. Regards, Mirza
What about CJ, he is also misusing this law. I wonder a new terminology of Justictarship will be introduced in up coming dictionary
@White Russian:
There is nothing that the supreme court do that invites this black law. The SC has to implement law without discrimination or fear or retribution. It is the government that is bent on going to any length to protect their corruption and personal interests.
@Jibran:
how do you know their is a pre-scripted rush? I call a law change that took a few hours in the NA and 5 minutes in the Senate a pre-scripted rush. Stop defending this black law. If their is a problem with the Contempt of court law go fix it with it in a bona fide manner.
I would agree that people should be able to criticize the courts and/or judges however they should not be allowed to ridicule and more importantly no one (including the president) should be above the law and ignore the judgements of the superior courts.
Spoke the 'working class leader', Justice Khawaja, against the 'elite'.
If Zardari wins this time against the SC, his party wins the next elections with clear majority. If not, he will have to face a tough fight in the coming elections.
Was USA president Richard Nixon able to stop the water gate investigation because he was president of the country NO because nobody is above law and every body should be held accountable for their actions?
@SM: There is difference between accountability and vendetta. And the patriotic people you are criticizing, are the ones calling for the due process. They are the ones who have been talking about the institutions, and the supremacy of the people, the parliament, and the constitution since you are an infant. The establishment, judiciary+military combo, were calling them traitors. Now again their love for "due process" is only selective. Right of fair trial, and defense is a basic right, yet bulldozing the proceedings of a trial, and rushing to a pre-scripted verdict have become a hallmark of this judiciary, especially the Gang of Five.
The only people here on ET supporting such laws are those whose personal interests lie in implementation of such laws.
Any patriotic Pakistan who believe in due process and accountability will refuse to toe the government line on anything that gives immunity to the actions of elected officials.
Judges have become sacred after the lawyers. Never mind that most of them are also PCO.
I feel there is nothing wrong with the comment made by the judge, unless you have already made up your mind to bash them unwarranted. I can sense how many people here going to reach once it is struck down.
Is there a single soul on this bench who hasn't taken oath under the PCO?
Judges have exactly the same immunity. Why not a Prime Minister?
@Logic Europe: Not only have they made up their minds but the Chief Justice (PCO tainted/Self Dry-Cleaned) has already spoken his mind even BEFORE the law became a law! I think the Chief Justice has already written the order and is itching to announce it. Just imagine; a law passed by Parliament is under challenge. Governments request for full court: Rejected! Governments request for 2 weeks time: Rejected! Attorney Generals requested for time: Rejected! On top of that 27 petitioners asked to complete arguments in ONE day! Is that not a shame? The present Supreme Court is doing more harm to the judicial system and the country than all the previous courts which aided and abetted ALL military dictators in the past. We all remember the Dosso case, the Begum Nusrat Bhutto case and the Zafar Ali Shah case. God only can now save us from the wrath of a judicial dictatorship of which Ms. Asma Jahangir had warned us about long ago.
Why not make the court system economical and effective for the poor, so that the Judges won't need to go for contempt of court?
@a&a: I always hate this argument of calling these morons as people elected government..... these people elected govt got 10 million votes of approx 80 million voters (around 12.5% voters).... and approx 180 million population (5.5%)..... Now considering 3.8 millions vote were bogus and the fact that since BB had laid her life for the PPP was primarily the reason these corrupt tola of chors and dakus under the umbrela of PPP call them the elected people........ Were these idiot to make their own party and contest election, I'm sure they would have even less seats than JUI-F
Is this group of five have some personal grudge against PPP . . .????
@Logic Europe:
I mean seriously?
Supreme Court should turned down this discriminatory law. It provides immunity only to high Govt officials. What about common people? A new bill should be brought in NA,giving every citizen the right to escape Contempt of Court proceedings, it will be better and the whole nation will get benefit :)
Stop lying and deceiving people. YOU ARE THE ELITE! No one can dare touch you and your kin. No one is allowed to say a word about you excesses, as he will be rounded up with contempt of court. If we don't like our government (peoples representatives), we have the freedom to bash them in public. But what about the judiciary and the armed forces. When they are responsible to most of the ills in this country, we reserve the rights to criticize them. Today, a fellow judge of yours dismissed charges against Anjum Aqeel for lack of evidence. Sir! don't you think it was throwing dust in public's eye. Don't you think the law gagging the people to say anything about the judiciary and military against the fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech? Sir! Pakistanis have had enough of your hypocrisy; please spare us now.
Contempt of court Act can be summed up as such: "ALL MEN ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME MEN ARE MORE EQUAL."
What is the criteria for constitution of bench to hear certain cases , if I recall international council of jurist have all ready shown reservation on this.
There are more important issues right now lingering across Pakistan and require urgent attention. Please stop these expensive personal trials, and move on to what we pay you for!! Be a judge, not a DICTATOR. You can buy the media, but there is still some sanity left in the nation.
Contempt law is a bad law and in my view violative of article 204 of the Constitution
This is the panel of judges you find on every case of the PPP.
there was no need of contempt of court law on the first place, if "you" haven't shown your personal enemity against the people elected Government . . . .!!!!
Contempt law is no doubt a bad law, but it did not come out of blue. SC invited it by deliberately and consistently stepping over the line. I hope there is still time to step back from the brink and avoid the derailing.
@Logic Europe, You don't need to be EInstein to figure out what is the purpose of this law.
Utter nonsense! Khwajajee, if anything the infamous "Laws of Contempt" tend to provide the courts power to gag any criticism, it provides a veil to those acts and utterances are suspicious and create questions in public minds. Frankly, it is exactlt opposite of what Khwaja suggests, these laws if not amended would continue to protect a few who behave like the 'super-elites' with powers to deny even their ultimate mortality and fading away somewhere in the final oblivion.
Looks like the time is up for zardari govt
you are right you highness !!!
So they have already made up their mind even before the arguments are completed.