' AHMED ALI M. SHAIKH, J.---Through instant Criminal Original Misc. Application filed under Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, applicant, Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi, seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan.
2. Briefly facts of the case are that on 10-10-2013 Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan, while talking to press has given a statement, which was largely published in newspapers, that "even judges were afraid of giving judgment in Karachi." Hence, the applicant has filed instant application.
3. On 28-11-2013 the Court appointed Mr. A. Q. Halepota, Senior Counsel, Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, Senior Counsel and Mr. Salahuddin Ahmed, Advocate as amicus. Notices were also issued to Deputy Attorney General and Advocate General, Sindh.
4. Applicant appearing in person has contended that the Prime Minister said that even judges were afraid of giving judgment in Karachi, used contemptuous language against judges and said statement tantamounts to ridiculing and scandalizing the judiciary. According to the applicant the contemptuous statement given by the Prime Minister attracts Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, which provided disqualification for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). He also cited a number of reported judgments of apex Court, including PLD 2007 SC 298 (Zonal Manager, UBL v.
Perveen Akhtar) and PLD 2009 SC 879 (Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan).
He also referred to PLD 2012 SC 553 (Suo Motu Case No.4 of 2010-Contempt proceedings against Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani, the Prime Minister of Pakistan) and prayed that notice under Article 204 of the Constitution read with provisions of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 be issued to the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
5. On the other hand, Mr. A. Q. Halepota, Senior Counsel and one of the Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court, has submitted that the application is not maintainable as even if the purported address of the Prime Minister, widely published in newspapers, relied upon by the applicant, is minutely examined it does not attract Article 204 of the Constitution. He submitted that there are three types of contempt of Court viz. Civil Contempt, Criminal Contempt and Judicial Contempt as defined in section 2 of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 and address of the Prime Minister does not fall in any of three categories. He further submitted that impugned address of the Prime Minister at Peshawar has to be weighed in context with the prevailing law and order situation. According to him, there was nothing in the said address which flouted or disregarded any order or judgment or decree of a civil Court or of writ issued by the Courts in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction or having the effect of obstructing the administration of justice. He also submitted that even otherwise the Prime Minister has immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution.
6. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, Senior Counsel and another Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court, while adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. A. Q. Halepota, Advocate, submitted that purported address of the Prime Minister relates to overall law and order situation prevailing in Karachi and nowhere in his said address he uttered a single word about judges of Superior Courts, hence, no proceedings either under Article 204 of the Constitution or Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, can be initiated against him. He further submitted that from tenor of the address in question of the Prime Minister it is crystal clear that he neither abused, interfered with or obstructed the process of Court or scandalized the Court or did anything which tends to bring the Court or a Judge of the Court into hatred, ridicule or contempt and by law said addressed does not constitute contempt of Court.
7. Mr. Salahuddin Ahmed, Advocate, the third Amicus appointed in the case has argued that impugned address of the Prime Minister in no way prejudice any pending proceedings before the Courts or contained a veiled threat to the Court. He also submitted that Article 248 of the Constitution provides full immunity to the Prime Minister and instant application is not maintainable at all. The learned DAG and AAG have adopted the aforesaid arguments advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae.
8. Heard the applicant and the learned Amicus appointed by the Court and scanned the record.
Undoubtedly, scope of powers and functions of Prime Minister in a parliamentary democracy cannot be easily defined, however, like every citizen the Prime Minister under Article 5(2) of the Constitution is bound to obey the Constitution.
9. Before dilating upon the delicate issue, it would be appropriate to reproduce hereunder definitions of "civil contempt" and "criminal contempt" mentioned in section 2(a) and (b) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003:-- "2. Definitions.- In this Ordinance, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject of context,--
(a) "civil contempt" means the wilful flouting or disregard of'?
(i) an order, whether interim or final, a judgment or decree of a court;
(ii) a writ or order issued by a court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction;
(iii) an undertaking given to, and recorded by, a court;
(iv) the process of a court;
(b) "criminal contempt" means the doing of any act with intent to, or having the effect of obstructing the administration of justice;"
10. The plea taken by the applicant that impugned address of the Prime Minister ridicules the judiciary or contemptuous is misconceived. From the tenor of the said address of the Prime Minister that even judges were afraid of giving judgment in Karachi it is quite manifest that the same was given in context with bad law and order situation prevailing in the country, more particularly in Karachi. Only such comments or remarks can be considered as contemptuous which really have a tendency to substantially prejudice the hearing of a case or to interfere in the administration of justice. Contrarily, the said words were not uttered to undermine any pending proceedings or ridicule the judiciary therefore, said statement does not fall within the two aforesaid definitions of contempt of court.
11. Moreover, Article 204(1)&(2) of the Constitutions of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, envisages that only the Supreme Court or a High Court have power to punish any person for contempt of court. This Article vested in the superior Courts an extraordinary power, which has to be exercised with great circumspection only where it is absolutely necessary in the public interest to do so. Prima facie, the Prime Minister, fully conscious of his duties and perturbed with the long bad law and order situation, while addressing to the press has given such remarks, therefore, I am of the view that it does not have any serious tendencies of the kind complained of by the applicant.
Nonetheless, assuming for the sake of arguments that a case for initiating contempt proceedings is made out, even then in view of settled law that a matter of contempt is between the Court and the alleged contemnor, it is up to the Court either to take any appropriate action against the alleged contemnor or to drop the matter.
12. Apart from above, the Prime Minister on 10-10-2013 has presided over a high powered meeting convened at Peshawar in connection with law and order situation in the country and thereafter talked to the press and gave remarks complained of. The Constitution assigns responsibility for maintaining law and order situation to the State and the Prime Minister being chief executive has given such remarks, which, in the given circumstances and long prevailing bad law and order situation, cannot be termed as scandalous or contemptuous or disqualifies him from holding office of Prime Minister in terms of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.
13. The vehemence of the applicant's submission was on the celebrated judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Suo Motu Case No.4 of 2010-Contempt proceedings against Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, reported in PLD 2012 SC 553. In the referred Judgment honourable larger bench of the August Court found the then Prime Minister of Pakistan guilty of and convicted him for contempt of Court under Article 204(2) of the Constitution read with section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance for wilful flouting, disregarding and disobedience of apex Court's direction contained in paragraph 178 of the judgment delivered in the case of Dr. Mubashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 265). However, in the instant case, neither this Court has given any direction to, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, which he wilfully flouted, disregarded or disobeyed nor he performed any act detrimental to the administration of justice or to ridicule this Court and the judiciary.
14. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that no case for initiation of contempt proceedings or issuance of notice to Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan, under the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 or under Article 204 of the Constitution is made out.
Therefore, the application being misconceived is dismissed.