SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.--Society, as we know today, did not always exist. What has remained constant over the ages, however, is man's need for another. We were never solitary creatures, we were and are, social animals - even Adam needed an Eve to survive. This social dependency demanded that man refine himself and transition into a civilized being. From pairs to familial groups, to clans to villages - our species underwent a gradual process of the development of civilization. To get meaning across, to understand another, to agree or to disagree - communication was vital for a co-existence. The spoken word, the first languages which emerged were crucial milestones in human evolution. Language made social interactions personal and profound - man learnt to speak, and to eventually speak their mind. Differences had to arise, and differences had to be settled. To resolve these differences crude form of legal norms were introduced. Thereafter through an evolution they were popularized as customs and traditions and ultimately "law of the land" in modern era. Social cohesion demanded an obedience to these customs and traditions. An idea of a moral standard, a collective conscience emerged. People societies began to seek social acceptance. Most of these segments of our history, we are still living others, we are still trying to revise. The modern term "Rule of Law" encapsulates these past ides ideas which are a basis of our present society. Historically the concept of obedience to 'rules and regulations' was introduced through a system which has been derived from a latin word judicium , which was introduced in 1623 A.D. This system ultimately emerged as 'Anglo Saxon System', which is now a glorifying Judicial System in various societies of the Western Countries. We being the Muslims have very strong heritage of discipline in all spheres of life the application of which is beyond imagination; hence teachings of Islam imprint minute details of the same legacy practically while observing Islam in its entirety. Moreover, we have very strong heritage of judicature, as well. The concept of accountability is ultimate of the system introduced by the Allah (almighty) through His Messengers especially the last most revered Messenger 'Syed-ul-Umbia Hazrat Muhammad. Our history is full of various occasions when the most celebrated personalities paid respect to the judicial system while facing accountability which further paved honour to our prestigious system while showing grace being unprecedented.
From the bare perusal of word 'history' wherever societal system is prevalent 'rule of law' has played/attained a pivotal importance to bring the society in order being a concept which can refine the society further as a whole notwithstanding the same is applicable individually or in a collective capacity. Therefore, it has become inalienable dictum of any civilization that wherever the 'supremacy of law' is breached the very fiber of the system has been wriggled down resulting into 'chaos' in the society. Like any other civilized sovereign state, we are also bestowed with Constitution, which was promulgated in the year 1956, 1962 and finally in 1973, being a written Constitution, the 'trichotomy' of the power has been defined. Judiciary being one of its vital organs has been assigned authority and power to carry on business in the Court to settle the rights and obligations in the society to keep it in order as prescribed by the "law of land". As it is human instinct, there is every likelihood that certain people would agitate, exceed their limits and might break law, therefore, society has also introduced punitive actions, which are embodied in Pakistan Penal Code and various other enactments of penal consequences. In the evolution of Judicial System it was also sensed that there might be some subjects, who can defy the existence of this system while paying disrespect to it or may ridicule or scandalize the person instrumental to carry on this system, hence to curb this apprehension another legislation was introduced which is called contempt of court.
It is apathy that the instant case is one of the glaring examples of the mindset, which was -taken care of by the law-makers much earlier to the incident in hand while introducing law relating to "contempt of court". The background of this incident though having no relevance to describe but in short words it would be advantageous to bring the same in line. In the year 2016, International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) published a report in which it was claimed and made available to the public 11.5 million secret documents regarding the 'malpractices and corruption of rulers of various countries and elite class which was not disclosed to public at large, later on known as the Panama Papers; wherein beside others, Prime Minister of the then Ruling Party (Pakistan Muslim League-N) was also charged with mighty corruption, which was concealed from public whilst being a public office holder. Various petitions including a reference were filed before august Supreme Court of Pakistan; wherein after providing all legal and equitable opportunities a declaration was made under Articles 62(1)(f), 63 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and as a consequence Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif was declared disqualified to be a Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) while determining the period of disqualification, it was held that he was barred from holding public office.
2. Soon after pronouncement of judgment by august Supreme Court of Pakistan qua disqualification of the then Prime Minister of Pakistan - Head of Ruling Party, an untoward incident took place within the premises of City Kasur on 13.04,2018; wherein the respondents being staunch supporters along with number of persons belonging to the then ruling party, staged a rally led by respondent/local MNA. During the course of demonstration, the respondents used filthy and objectionable language in an unprecedented manner while uttering abuses against the Judges of the Superior Judiciary, Armed Forces in general and Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan and his immediate family, in particular. This matter was extensively circulated through social media with design, with an intent to ridicule the 'Institution of Judiciary' and Pakistan Army in the eyes of general public, hence, the petitioner, who is President of District Bar Association, Kasur invoked the jurisdiction of this Court through filing Cr1. Org. No,205769/2018. The matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, who while taking cognizance of the same constituted the Full Bench for adjudication there-upon.
3. In pursuance of the constitution of the Bench, the matter was taken up on 02.05.2018 and after fulfilling all the legal formalities, notices were issued to the concerned quarters i,e, Attorney General for Pakistan. Advocate General Punjab and respondents. District Police Officer was directed to ensure compliance of the order and produce relevant record in the Court. On various dates the matter was taken.up and subsequently after displaying the video clips in Open Court and keeping in view the report submitted by the District. Police Officer, show-(sic) 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with Section 3 punishable under Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 while office was directed to prepare separate files.
4. After initiation of proceedings, Mr. Shan Gull, Additional Advocate General was appointed as 'Special Prosecutor' and vide order dated 11.05.2018 charge was framed against the respondents to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution was asked to adduce its evidence and list of four witnesses was placed on record. On 29.05.2018 statements of Ghulam Mustafa (PW-1), Zahid Nawaz, District Police Officer (PW-2) and Mirza Naseem-ul-Hassan (PW -3) were recorded and they were also cross-examined by learned counsel for the respondents. Thereafter on 01.06.2018 statement of Abdul Rehman, Correspondent of a private TV-Channel was recorded as CW-1 and he was also cross-examined by the prosecution, as well as, learned counsel for the respondents. During the course of proceedings the CDs containing video clips, as well as, report of forensic with regard to polygraphist test was brought on record. Subsequently statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein respondents Nos,9 and 10 admitted their guilt while other respondents denied the prosecution accusations. However, none of the respondents opted to lead evidence in their defence. It is pertinent to mention here that respondents Nos,9 and 10 had tendered unconditional apology during the course of evidence while rest of the respondents placed on record unconditional apology after recording statements under Section 342, Cr.P.C. and the case was fixed for hearing of arguments by learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned Special Prosecutor while addressing the Court submitted that the prosecution substantiated its case through reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence. While elaborating learned Prosecutor contended that the prosecution produced three witnesses viz. Ghulam Mustafa (PW-1), Zahid Nawaz, District Police Officer (PW-2) and Mirza Naseem-ul-Hassan (PW-3), who fully substantiated the prosecution version to the effect that all the respondents (6 to 11) on 13.04.2018 at 4:30 p.m. in the area of Shehbaz Khan Chowk, Kasur, individually and jointly, in connivance with each other had staged rally against the superior judiciary, as well as, state institutions during which they chanted slogans while uttering objectionable/filthy language against the Chief Justice of Pakistan, his immediate family, judges of the superior judiciary, as well as, state institutions. Further submitted that documentary evidence in the shape of Exh.PW/1/A, Exh.PW/2/A, Exh.PW/2/B, Exh.PW/2/C, Exh.PW/3/A and Exh.PW/3/B was also brought on record to support the prosecution version and no objection whatsoever was raised on behalf of the contemnors in this regard. Further submitted that although Naeem Safdar/respondent No,7 and Ayyaz Khan/respondent No,8 did not themselves chant slogans against the judiciary, however, they remained present during the demonstration of rally. Main crux of arguments of learned Special Prosecutor is that the respondents had tried to mobilize the public opinion against the Judges of the apex Court and used inappropriate language against the Hon'ble CJP and his immediate family, hence keeping in view the evidence brought forth on record, their act squarely falls within the mischief of Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Section 3, punishable under Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. As far as apologies submitted by the respondents are concerned, learned Special Prosecutor submitted that keeping in view the language used by the contemnors, which is demonstrative of their intent in ridiculing and scandalizing the superior judiciary and state institutions, they in no way deserve any allowance as such are liable to be convicted/punished under the relevant provisions of law.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently controverted the assertions made by learned Special Prosecutor. As far respondents Nos,9 and 10 are concerned, it was argued on their behalf that both of them have accepted their guilt qua prosecution accusations. As far as rest of the respondents are concerned, it was argued that although they were present during the course of demonstration of rally, however, they have not been ascribed the role of using filthy language or chanting slogans. Learned counsel for respondent No,7 contended that neither respondent No,7 was instrumental in arranging rally or hatching any conspiracy nor did he raise a single slogan against any person or institution. It was vehemently argued that appearance of respondent No,7 at the occasion was not pre-planned rather purely accidental and at the most he raised slogans in favour of his leadership only. Learned counsel for respondent No,8 submitted that provisions of Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 begin with word 'whoever', hence, no person can be saddled, with the liability for the act committed by his co-accused when he himself has not uttered any word. It was further argued that respondent No,8 has also not been ascribed any role as mentioned in the charge sheet. Learned counsel for respondents Nos,6 and 11 contended that both the respondents have utmost respect and regard for the institution of judiciary and they cannot even think to pay any disregard to it. He further submitted that although respondents Nos,6 and 11 remained present with the rally, however, they did not use any sort of filthy language against the judiciary or any other state institution. It was finally argued that in view of evidence brought forth on record respondents Nos,6, 9, 10 and 11 are not connected with the offence and as they have tendered unconditional apology wherein they have thrown themselves at the mercy of the Court; therefore, notices issued against them are liable to be discharged/withdrawn.
7. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record available on file on the touchstone of relevant law on the subject.
8. When the Court exercises its powers while dealing with. contempt matters, it does not do so to vindicate the dignity and honour of an individual judge who is personally attacked or scandalized, but to uphold the majesty of the 'Rule of Law' and of the 'administration of justice'. The law of contempt has been enacted to secure public respect and confidence in the judicial process. If such confidence is shaken or broken, the confidence of the common man in the institution of judiciary and democratic set up is likely to be shaken which, if not checked, can be destructive for the society itself. No one can be permitted to flout the mandate of law of respecting the courts for establishment of 'Rule of Law' under the cloak of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution, which no doubt is subject to 'reasonable restrictions'. Moreover, it must be remembered that the maintenance of dignity of courts is one of the cardinal principles of rule of law in a democratic set up and any criticism of the Judicial institution couched in language that apparently appears to be mere criticism but ultimately results in undermining the dignity of the courts cannot be permitted when found having crossed the limits and has to be punished.
9. There is no cavil to this proposition that the proceedings in the contempt cases are 'quasi- criminal' in nature and it is between the Court and the Contemnor. However, in the instant case this Court while extending its jurisdiction provided full opportunity of hearing to the respondents and all requisite legal formalities were obeyed keeping in view the dictates of Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
Perusal of the record available on file clearly reflects that the occurrence of the case in hand has not been denied by any of the respondents rather it would not be out of context to mention here that almost all the respondents had accepted the factum of staging of rally which ultimately merged into demonstration against the 'Institution of Judiciary' and 'Pakistan Army'. There is no second cavil to this proposition that the language used by the respondents during the course of demonstration was unprecedented under the patronage of a political party. Perusal of the record clearly reflects that the same was not staged with a political motive and design rather was demonstrated with an intent to humiliate the two institutions of the country viz. 'Judiciary' and 'Pak Army', which had been under continuous target of the leadership of the afore-said political party led by Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, who was declared disqualified by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan to hold any public office.
10. The main crux of arguments advanced by one of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the word 'whosoever' in Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 means that this cannot be extended to 'in furtherance of common object'. There is no denial to this fact that the provisions of Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, commence with word 'whosoever' but it does not mean that if the same act is being repeated by others and given full concurrence at the same moment it would absolve their responsibility qua accusations which clearly fall within the ambit of Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. The video displayed in the 'Open Court' clearly reflects that the slogans were equally responded by the number of persons who were present over there in the same tone and gravity which was used by the individuals who chanted such slogans hence they are equally saddled with the responsibility of committing contempt being in league and as such the arguments of the learned counsel on this score is of without any legal force.
11.As far as record which has been placed before us by Zahid Nawaz, District Police Officer, Kasur (PW-2) as Exh.PW-2/A relating to video clips and report of the photogramatic test of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency is concerned, the same itself is sufficient to bring the charge coupled with the fact that the majority of the respondents have admitted the incident and as such when the case of the prosecution is not denied, it is established law that the same would be deemed as if that was admitted by the defence. This principle of law is equally applicable in the instant case.
12.As far as case of Naeem Safdar and Ayyaz Khan/respondents Nos,7 and 8 is concerned, perusal of record available on file reveals that both of them remained silent spectators and have not participated in the demonstration with same attitude, which is visible in the case of other four respondents. This aspect of the case is further fortified from the display of video clipping which reflects that Naeem Safdar/respondent had participated for few minutes and during his participation only political speeches were made, which he being member of the 'provincial assembly' was considered to be within his legal framework and as such allegation of their being violent against the institutions create doubt in its authenticity, hence case of respondents Nos,7 and 8 is squarely distinguishable from other especially when Zahid Nawaz, District Police Officer, has also admitted that he has not ascribed any role to these respondents particularly to Ayyaz Khan/respondent No,8.
In addition to above, both respondents Nos,7 and 8 have tendered unconditional apology and thrown themselves at the mercy of the Court. Therefore, while evaluating the evidence/material brought forth on record, we are convinced that Naeem Safdar/respondent No,7 respondent in Crl.
Org. No,211295/2018) and Ayyaz Khan/respondent No,8 (respondent in Crl. Org. No,211296-W/2018) are not connected with the charge framed against them. Therefore, both of them are directed to be acquitted of the charge, and notices issued against them by virtue of order dated 09.05.2018 are discharged.
13.As far as case of Sh. Waseem Akhtar, Nasir Khan, Jamil Ahmed Khan and Ahmed Latif/respondents Nos,6, 9, 10 and 11 is concerned we are mindful that the jurisdiction of the Court is to be exercised with meticulous care when the case is clear and beyond reasonable doubt. There is no cavil to this proposition that respondents Nos,9 and 10 have admitted their guilt as contained in the charge sheet. As far as Sh. Waseem Akhtar and Ahmed Latif/respondents Nos,10 and 11 are concerned, bare perusal of the record available on file reflects that both of them remained present from the very beginning till the end of the rally. Respondent No,6 was sitting M.N.A. of the ruling party at the relevant time and he was not only instrumental in staging the rally rather he also led the same. He actively responded to the slogans in the same tone and gravity as raised by co- contemnors. As far as Ahmed Latif/respondent No,11 is concerned he is stated to be lawyer by profession. Although he was not an office bearer of any political party at the relevant time, however, except his political status, his role is at par with Sh. Waseem Akhtar/ respondent No,6. He remained present all the time from the very beginning till end of the rally. From the video clips it can easily be established that notwithstanding the fact that he was aware of the consequences of the language used by the participants/slogans raised during the proceedings of rally, which were fully responded by him, he actively participated in the occasion. The person having such a literary/professional background cannot take the premium as compared to that of an ordinary/illiterate villager. There is no cavil to this proposition that Bench and Bar are two pillars of one organ. If the professional lawyers would join the political rallies staged to humiliate the 'judiciary' and respond the filthy/objectionable slogans, who will come forward for maintenance of dignity of courts, which is one of the cardinal principles of rule of law in a democratic set up.
14.From the above it is fully established that the act of respondents Nos,6, 9, 10 and 11 at the occasion was squarely prejudicial to the integrity and independence of judiciary of Pakistan as a whole as they had attempted to defame it in order to bring it into ridicule. As far as gravity of the incident and the sentence provided in the statute is concerned, we are of the considered view that the respondents have exceeded their limits of decency, respect, honour and had made an attempt to disregard the institutions of 'judiciary' and 'army' and as such they have not only committed the crime relating to the contempt rather they have gone beyond socially and legally acceptable conduct and they tried to destroy the fiber of public order and as such this might be an attempt to create 'chaos' in the country which is already facing turmoil on so many other issues, which are of vital nature and require emergent redressal. Therefore, while taking into consideration the provisions of Section 18 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, we are fully satisfied that contempt committed by Sh. Waseem Akhtar/respondent No,6, Nasir Khan/respondent No,9, Jamil Ahmed Khan/respondent No,10 and Ahmed Latif/respotident No,11 is squarely detrimental to the administration of justice in addition to bringing the superior judiciary in disrespect and ridicule. The well-known proposition of law is that it punishes the archer as soon as the arrow is shot no matter if it misses or hits the target. Hence, respondents Nos,6, 9, 10 and 11, are liable to be convicted under Article 204(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with Section 3 punishable under Section 5(i) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003.
15.As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, as respondents Nos,6, 9, 10 and 11 have tendered unconditional apology, therefore we are convinced to hold that they are entitled to some allowance with regard to infliction of sentence on account of their unqualified/ unconditional apology. Therefore, Sh. Waseem Akhtar/respondent No,6 (respondent in Crl. Org. No,211294- W/2018), Nasir Khan/respondent No,9 (respondent in Crl. Org. No,211295-W/2017), Jamil Ahmed Khan/respondent No,10 (respondent in Crl. Org. No,211298-W/2018) and Ahmed Latif/ respondent No,11 (respondent in Crl. Org. No,211299-W/2018), are held guilty under Article 204(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with Section 3 punishable under Section 5(i) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, and all of them are sentenced to undergo SI for one month each with fine of Rs,1,00,000/- each and in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. for one week each.
16. Sh. Waseem Akhtar/respondent No,6, Nasir Khan/respondent No,9, Jamil Ahmed Khan/respondent No,10 and Ahmed Latif/respondent No,11 are present before the Court. They are directed to be taken into custody and lodged at jail to serve out their sentence. Benefit of Section 382,-B, Cr.P.C. is also extended, if applicable.