Contempt of court act: SC shoots down govt request for more time

Federation to begin defence of new law from today.


Qamar Zaman July 30, 2012

ISLAMABAD:


After an exhaustive hearing of over 20 petitions challenging the new contempt law, it is now the government’s turn to defend it.


With all eyes now on the government, its counsel, Abdul Shakoor Paracha, requested for more time to prepare arguments – but this request was shot down by the Supreme Court’s five-member bench.

Monday saw the court open its floor to the 27 petitions challenging the Contempt of Court Act 2012. Among those who had challenged the law was the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), which had called a ‘black day’ last week in protest against the contentious Act.

The PBC’s vice-chairman, Latif Afridi, presented his arguments, in which he contended that the Act violated the fundamental rights defined by the Constitution. He, however, did suggest that an amending ordinance should be issued and the new law should be made in consonance with Article 204.

It was earlier reported that the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party had approached the PBC and had asked for suggestions to amend the contempt law in conformity with the Constitution.

“Pakistan’s democracy and judiciary are both infant,” Afridi said before the court on Monday. He underlined the need to nullify the impression of any conflict between parliament and the judiciary. “There is a need to create an impression that the Supreme Court is acting like a doctor and if a case is brought before it, its role should be to treat the patient and not to kill it, though cancerous limbs ought to be amputated.”

During the course of the hearing, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who is heading the bench, observed that the growing interest of the masses in parliament and judiciary was an indication of public awareness which would strengthen democracy in the country. “Change in public attitude is an encouraging sign,” he stated.

The chief justice said that such debates had always produced good results in Europe in the past and it was a “healthy sign” — and will eventually enable consensus to evolve in a country.

Justice Jawwad S Khawja observed that, as nations mature, difference of opinion should not be seen as adversarial between the two bodies.

The chief justice also observed that the court had gone through the parliamentary debate on the Act and was convinced that they were in good spirit. “After going through the speeches, we learnt that they [parliamentarians] have discussed all aspects of the new law,” he said.

Earlier, the court had consumed an entire day listening to speeches made by parliamentarians. The court had also made certain observations over the role of the opposition, particularly its walkout prior to voting over the bill. The opposition, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) had expressed disappointment over the remarks made by the judges.

Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani observed that the court had gone through some of the best speeches of parliamentarians over the new law, including those of Raza Rabbani, Aitzaz Ahsan and Haji Adeel.

Justice Khawja observed that though some of Haji Adeel’s remarks were critical to the judiciary, it was his right to speak, which has been protected under Articles 68 and 69 of the Constitution. “Parliamentarians enjoy protection like the judiciary,” he said.

From the next hearing, the government through Paracha and Attorney General Irfan Qadir will present the government’s version on the new law.


Published in The Express Tribune, July 31st, 2012.

COMMENTS (12)

Ahmer Ali | 8 years ago | Reply Now present PPP's and its allied political parties' leaders are trying their best and utmost to delay this case till the announcement of next general elections' date and shall use all delaying tactics and lame excuses in this regard because they know very well that next general elections are near and they want to complete their tenure at all cost no matter they have to resist against the Supreme Court's decisions by using any means even either wrongful,illegal and unlawful or rightful,lawful and legal but their main focus is using all easily possible available wrongful,illegal and unlawful means to get more and more time.......
Mirza | 8 years ago | Reply

@Mirza: Sorry one of the URL did not work or change. Here is the summary with the URL: http://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/3679.html At the end of 2001, the Indian Supreme Court issued a directive ordering states to institute school lunches – known locally as “midday meals” – in government primary schools. This paper provides a large-scale assessment of the enrollment effects of India’s midday meal scheme, which offers warm lunches, free of cost, to 120 million primary school children across India and is the largest school feeding program in the world. To isolate the causal effect of the policy, we make use of staggered implementation across Indian states in government but not private schools. Using a panel data set of almost 500,000 schools observed annually from 2002 to 2004, we find that midday meals result in substantial increases in primary school enrollment, driven by early primary school responses to the program. Our results are robust to a wide range of specification tests. Download Info If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems readthe IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large. File URL: http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/page/portal/DocBaseContent/WP/WP-CESifoWorkingPapers/wp-cesifo-2011/wp-cesifo-2011-12/cesifo1_wp3679.pdf Download Restriction: no

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ