The contempt ordinance of 2003 provides more of a fair trial than the newly-promulgated contempt act, believes Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
Presiding over a five-member bench hearing petitions challenging the contentious Contempt of Court Act 2012 on Tuesday, the chief justice said the new law was criminal, and did not even provide procedures for civil, criminal, and judicial contempt.
The bench said that, in the presence of the 2003 law, there was no need for the 2012 one. Justice Jawwad S Khawaja remarked that the 2012 law was an attempt to grant immunity to the elite class. He said contempt would become meaningless as a result of this practice. The bench also observed that the Contempt Ordinance 2003 has protection under the 18th Amendment, adding that it was also properly considered law in 2010 when parliamentarians passed the 18th Amendment.
Advocate Hamid Khan, representing the Karachi Bar Association, which is one of the many petitioners in the case, argued that the new contempt law has been passed in hurry, adding: “Actually, in the garb of a new act, the government wants to snatch the court power of regulation mentioned under Article 204 (3) of the Constitution.”
Khan added that the new law is replica of Contempt Act 1976 and only the clause related to immunity to the president, prime minister, governor, chief ministers and ministers is new. The court observed that, throughout the world, the trend is to try and minimise the scope of immunity, but, in Pakistan, those at the helm of affairs are extending it to all public office holders.
Khan argued that section 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 12 of the Contempt Act 2012 are all against the Constitution. He added that, if these sections are removed from the new law, then the entire act basically could not survive and would be rendered incoherent. In his arguments the KBA’s counsel presented a history of the contempt law in Pakistan, and also compared different laws promulgated in the country at different times.
Ashraf Gujjar, former president of Islamabad High Court Bar Association, contended that the new contempt act is against the basic theme and main structure of the Constitution and aims at creating different classes. Advocate Liaquat Qureshi, another petitioner, argued that the new law was not thoroughly debated before legislation.
The hearing was adjourned till Wednesday.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 25th, 2012.
COMMENTS (11)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1714024018-0/ModiLara-(1)1714024018-0-270x192.webp)
Big fan of Malik Qayyum. Speak only after meeting him in person. Stop basing your judgements on Geo TV Mirza janu
Why PM should ask the Swiss Courts. Why not the NAB.
@Mirza: mirza jee NRO was also given by musharraf which your favourite govt is so fond of.
"The bench said that, in the presence of the 2003 law, there was no need for the 2012 one" What a great comment by the PCO judges. The laws made by Gen Mush's dictatorship are the best and there is no need for the elected govt to legislate. Once a PCO judge is always a PCO. What a shame that these judges are still conspiring with the likes of Gen Mush and Gen Zia. They have gone open to the extent that they make statements even before the laws are made. Yet their cronies call them independent judges when their decisions are open secret! In Pakistani history they would be listed with Justice Munir, Molvi Mushtaq, Nasim Shah, Malik Qayyum, and likes.
Do you people really want all these office holders to be immune to any thing they do, lets see, this current PM is called Rental Raja for some reasons and one should ask him where did he get the money to go on a buying spree in London . Some say Arsalan Choudry should be prosecuted and I believe he is but what this has to do with his father. Is James Holms father or mother is responsible for their son's murdering 12 movie goers in Denver Colorado? Is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is corrupt and has stashed millions some where that we don't know. Believe me if he has done it , the Brits and the Americans will be blackmailing him right now, it is not beyond them. Do you want to have high government echelons to be free of any restrictions and they could do what ever they want to, you might as well have military dictatorship again or even better to have absolute Monarchy like some of the Middle Eastern and African countries have, Zardari would just love that idea. Why not, perhaps you people deserve it.
Both had lost balance. With spinning heads, balanced decisions can not be made. First stop then rework. Love you all.
Gets battered, as it should. An example of such a law is not found anywhere in the world and the fact that our lawmakers tried to do it so blatantly shows they have no fear of accountability. Why should they fear, they can always play the 'saving democracy' card and get away with robbery in broad daylight.
A small request to CJ: Please do not make comments during hearing which may be used by Media to form opinion in minds of people. If they want to make any comments, Court should bar making it as BREAKING NEWS.
From your comments, it is apparent, that contempt of court law will be made void. This would hamper CJ own integrity means CJ and his allied Judges made up their mind what to decide before hearing.
That's what, you asked for it. . . ;-)
These judges found 17th amendment to be good and dismissed all petitions against it, while they dragged 18th amendment in courts for months. The found LFO to be good, NRO to be bad. And found Musharraf's Contempt Ordinance to be good but an act of parliament to be bad. Why am I not surprised.