1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J. -Mr. Karamatullah; respondent, wrote two letters-one to Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad on the 4th May 1971, and the other to Mr. Justice Muhammad Yaqub Ali on the 5th May 1971, which contained material contemptuous in nature. A notice was thereupon issued to him under Article 123 of the Constitution of 1962 to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of Court.
2. Earlier the respondent was convicted for contempt of Court thrice. In the first instance he was let off with a warning. On the second occasion he offered an unqualified apology and was fined Rs. 200.
3. In the third case he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. These convictions had, however, no effect on him. Indeed as will be seen presently his pen poured more and more contemptuous material both against the Court and individual Judge and his voice in committing contempt of the Court in its very face became louder and louder. A stringent action was, therefore, called for to prevent the respondent from committing further contempt of Court ad infinitum.
4. Mr. Karamatullah was respondent in Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1967 which was heard along with several other appeals filed by the erstwhile Government of West Pakistan against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court declaring the compulsory retirement of a large number of its officers including the respondent as without lawful authority. The appeals were dismissed on the 11th April 1968.
5. The respondent, however, did not feel content and filed a review petition on the ground that two questions which arose in his case, namely, (i) that he had a legal right to the payment of salary from the date of his illegal retirement ; and (ii) that the action taken against him was mala fide were not considered in the judgment of the Court.
6. The review application was dismissed on the 10th October 1968, as barred by time and on merits.
7. After the order was announced the respondent filed a number of miscellaneous applications and sent personal letters to the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Hamoodur Rahman as he then was in which he expressed his dissatisfaction for the failure of the Court to give the relief asked for in the review petition. The language used 1n these communications was generally contemptuous in nature. In one of the letters he said "what a surprising manifestation of dispensation of justice according to law at the highest judicial forum in Pakistan". He had adopted this offensive attitude because the Court did not act in accordance with his wishes in a judicial matter.
8. While convicting him on this occasion the Court observed; "Litigants should know that Courts in this country dispose of cases according to the law of the land and following certain procedures. No one should expect them to depart from this course. Any one who criticises the manner of dispensa--tion of justice and that also in unbecoming language and casts reflection on the Judges renders himself liable for contempt of Court. Lastly it must be clearly understood that Judges do not appreciate the practice of letters being written directly to them by litigants. This may amount to a contempt of Court whenever it can be gathered that the purpose was to influence the decision of the addressee in a pending case.
9. The contemner in this case has tendered unqualified apology. He personally appeared before us and was found to be repentant. In view of this we do not propose to award any sentence on him.
10. He is let off with a warning."
11. The lenient treatment meted out by the Court to the respondent had no effect on him. In fact, his subsequent conduct shows that the assumption made by the Court that he was repentant was not correct.
12. On 4-2-1969 the Government of West Pakistan filed Civil Review Petition No. 5 of 1969 for a clarification and review of the order of the Court dated 11th April 1968, dismissing Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1967. The respondent also filed an application for an action in contempt against the Government of West Pakistan for its "refusal to implement the decision of this Court". Both the applications were disposed of by order dated 18th March 1969. It was clarified that the respon--dent retired from service automatically on attaining the age of 60th year on the 30th November 1968. It was further observed that the respondent was entitled to receive the arrears of his salary up to 31st March 1968, and that the amount of pension payable to him will be computed in accordance with the date of his retirement.
13. The contempt application was dismissed as the Government had not deliberately or contumaciously committed default in implementing the order of the Court, dated 11th October 1968.
14. On the 19th March 1969, the respondent wrote a letter to the Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan, Education Department, and endorsed its copies to the Chief Justice and the Judges who had heard the case complaining that he could not press his case in Court for a declaration that he continued to be in service after attaining the age of sixty years and was entitled to leave preparatory to retirement because "their Lordships were not in a mood to hear the same" and "discre--tion was the better part of valour" which kept his mouth shut "as regards these two points in compliance with the stern orders of the Court in this regard".
15. A notice was thereupon issued to the respondent on the 27th March 1969, to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of the Court.
16. The respondent put in appearance and tendered unqualified apology which was accepted and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a week.
17. In disregard of the warning administered by the Court and the imposition of a fine of Rs. 200 the respondent on the 20th April 1970, wrote a letter to Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan in which it was falsely alleged that his Lordship had given an interview at Peshawar to a litigant before his case was heard on the 24th and 25th of March 1970. The letter concluded thus: "----This information was a highly welcome and hearten--ing piece of news for me inasmuch as I had always been under the impression that such interviews with Judges might precipitate action under contempt of Court. I congratulate your Lordship on this welcome change in your Lordship's concept of contempt of Court."
18. In the second letter the respondent alleged that this Court had wilfully withheld publication of its judgment delivered on the 18th March 1969, "because of the realization by the Court of the weakness of the legal position stated in the last but one para. Of the judgment."
19. A notice under Article 123 was again issued to the respondent who in reply stated; "(1) I solemnly stated on an oath on the Holy Quran that the information contained in my letter of 20th April 1970, was given to me by no other person than Mr. Abdul Khaliq himself who was respondent in C. A. No. 2-P/1968. I am ashamed of having made that information the basis of my letter dated 20th April 1970, to Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan. That information had not in the least detracted from my complete faith in the integrity of his Lordship Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan. Mr. Abdul Khaliq too had not communicated to me that information in a sense which cast any improper reflection on his Lordship. In fact we both praised his Lordship's integrity and sense of justice at the time of our talk about the Court's judgment in C. A. No. 2-P/1968. This again I solemnly state on an oath on the Holy Quran.
(2) As regards my letter, dated 25-4-1970, the circumstances that gave me the "faint feeling" stated in that letter are recorded in that letter. I have no other reaction but that of remorse and shame for having brought that "faint feeling" on the Supreme Court record. The purpose of writing that letter is also clear from that letter. That purpose did not in any way reflect adversely on their Lordships integrity in my mind. I solemnly state on an oath on the Holy Quran that this was, and is, my state of mind vis-a-vis that letter."
20. The Court found the respondent guilty and by order dated the 8th July 1970, sentenced the respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It was observed on this occasion; "The conduct of the respondent is highly objectionable. On two previous occasions, contempt proceedings were taken against him. In the first case, he was only warned and on the second occasion, a fine of Rs. 200 was imposed on him. Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan has denied the statement on the respondent that he saw Abdul Khaliq before his appeal was heard. Similarly, innuendo made in the second letter that the judgment in review petition was withheld from the publication because of the realization by the Court of the weakness of the legal position stated in the last but one para. Of that judgment, is also scandalous and amounts to gross contempt."
21. This was, however, not the end of the matter. On 3-12-1970 the respondent submitted petition to the President and Chief Martial Law Administrator "for getting examined by competent authority the behaviour of the Judges of the superior Courts in Pakistan in the matter culminating in the three contempt of Court cases decided against him by the Supreme Court ofPakistan at Lahore on 11-11- 1968, 3-6-1969 and 8-7-1970."
22. In a subsequent petition dated the 25th January 1971, addressed to the President and Chief Martial Law Administrator the respondent prayed that--; "I do further respectfully request that the verdict of competent Authority as regards the behaviour of the Judges of the superior Courts in the matter under reference may kindly be got printed in the PLD in the same manner that the judgments in the contempt matters decided against me by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 11-11-1968 and 8-7-1970 were printed in 1969 SCMR 43 and PLD (S C) for October 1970, respectively. Such a procedure will reveal to all concerned the full facts of this poignant experience of mine in the context of the law of contempt of Court as applied against me by the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the three Contempt matters decided against as on 11-11-1968, 3-6-1969 and 8-7-1970. I beg for full and complete vindication of my position vis-a-vis these three contempt cases in this our Islamic Republic of Pakistan by you as the Head of this State."
23. Copies of the applications were endorsed to the Law Minister, Home Minister and the Registrar of this Court with a postscript that the records of the three contempt proceedings against him may be sent to the Government of Pakistan, Home Affairs Division.
24. On 26th January 1971, the respondent wrote another letter to the Law Minister and to the Home Minister on the same subject for refund of the amounts of fine paid by him. In this letter reference was made to two other documents "my concise statement" dated 10-8-1970 regarding the strictly legal basis of this matter" and "my exposition dated 5-9-1970 of this file and complete circumstances of the three contempt matters declared against me on 11-11-1968, 3-6-1969 and 8- 7-1970". Copy of the letter was endorsed to the Registrar of this Court.
25. On the 28th April 1971, the respondent wrote the following letter to Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan, and endorsed a copy thereof to the President of Pakistan "My Lord Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan, Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistan, through the Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Lahore.
26. Subject: Karamatullah Khan's conviction by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the contempt of Court case decided against him by that Court on 8-7-1970 as Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38 of 1970 and the fine of Rs. 2,000 imposed on him in that case.
27. My Lord, This is with reference to my petitions to the President of Pakistan for remission of the above- mentioned fine, the case regarding which is presently under action with Government of Pakistan.
2. The purpose of this submission is to set right the record as regards my letter dated 20-4-1970 to your Lordship wherein I had referred to my `information' (at that time) to the effect that your Lordship "had given personal interview to Mr. Abdul Khaliq, Treasury Officer, Peshawar, to enable him to explain his case (C. A. No. 2-P of 1968) prior to the hearing of the appeal on the 24th and 25th of March 1970". Your Lordship denied the correctness of that "information". Your Lordship's denial to have seen Abdul Khaliq before his appeal was heard is quite true "literally", according to my latest "information" on this point. It was not Abdul Khaliq, but some other gentleman who explained to your Lordship Abdul Khaliq's case of C. A. No. 2-P of 196h prior to the hearing of that Civil Appeal, and your Lordship told that gentleman that if the facts of the case are as explained by him to your Lordship the case would be decided in Abdul Khaliq's favour. Abdul Khaliq subsequently sought an interview with their Lordships Mr. Justice Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Mr. Justice M. R.
28. Khan for the purpose of explaining his case and this interview was granted to him by their Lordships in Government House at Peshawar prior to the hearing of his appeal.
3. I submit unreserved and unqualified apology for the slight twist of facts that crept into my letter dated 20-4-1970 to your Lordship for no fault of mine and write this letter to set the record straight in this regard.
29. Dated : 28th April 1971. I am, your Lordships'
30. Most respectfully".
31. On the 15th July 1971, the respondent wrote a letter to the Law Secretary, Government of Pakistan and Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Home Affairs Division, with an endorsement to the Registrar of this Court "for information of all the Judges of the Supreme Court. It is possible their Lordships might feel morally and judicially urged to requisition the above-mentioned two documents from the Government of Pakistan, 'if only to have a complete knowledge of the experience I have undergone to my detriment in the three contempt matters specified above." The documents referred to are: "my concise statement" and "exposition, dated 25-9-1970".
32. This was followed by three applications to the President and Chief Mavial Law Administrator of which copies were promptly endorsed to the Registrar of this Court. In the first application, dated 2.8-1971 a request was made that "the conduct of the concerned Judges of the superior Courts in the matter which culminated in my above-mentioned petitions may kindly be ordered to be examined by an authority analogous to the Supreme Judicial Council of Pakistan which may be set up by you for this purpose through a Regulation as the Chief Martial Law 'Administrator of Pakistan". in the second application, dated 12-8-1971 the prayer was repeated that--- ---an authority analogous to the Supreme Judicial Council of Pakistan may kindly be set up and commissioned by you through a Martial Law Regulation for the purpose of examin--ing the conduct of the concerned Judges of the superior Courts in Pakistan (some of whom are also Members of the Supreme Judicial Council of Pakistan) in the context of the matter which brought forth my above-mentioned petitions to you, and to adjudicate whether or not the conduct of some of these Judges comes up to the standard of 'Propriety' envisaged in the recent judgment of the Supreme Judicial Council of Pakistan in Justice Shaukat Ali's case of "Gross misconduct".
33. The same prayer was made in the third letter, dated 17-8-71 with the addition: "for the purpose of examining the conduct of the concerned Judges of the superior Courts in Pakistan (some of whom are members of Supreme Judicial Council of Pakistan) and to adjudicate whether or not the conduct of some of the Judges in the matter under reference comes to the standard of propriety demanded of a Judge".
34. Copies of the letters, referred to above, were placed by the Registry on the file of Civil Miscellaneous 38 of 1970 in which the respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, but were not brought to the notice of the Judges on that occasion. However, they had passed hands among various officers working in the Registry.
35. On 5-5-1971 the respondent wrote a letter to Mr. Justice Muhammad Yaqub Ali with the following endorse--ment; "Copy submitted to General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan, President of Pakistan, as a relevant document in the context of my petitions to him for remission of the fines of Rs. 200 and Rs. 2,000 imposed on me on 3-6-1969 and 8-7-1970 in two separate contempt of Court cases by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It spot-lights my observation to the effect that the functioning of our Supreme Court is ultra-executive and infra---judicial in spirit."
36. A day earlier he had written a letter to Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan which is reproduced below in extenso: "To My Lord Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan, Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistan, through the Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Lahore.
37. Subject : Karamatullah Khan's petition, dated 3-3-1970 to the Supreme Court of Pakistan and his petition, dated 5-3-1971 to that Court under Article 123 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Article 61 of that Constitution.
38. My Lord, Kindly refer to my letter No. 166/Peshawar, dated 27-4-71 addressed to your Lordship on the subject cited above. Since I have not received from your Lordship any communication withdrawing or clarifying the observation made by your Lordship in open Court on 14-4-71 to the effect that the Supreme Court is competent to "reverse" its decision in my case of illegal retirement, I feel justified to conclude that your Lordship is firmly of that view which I equally firmly believe to be "not according to law". The purpose of this present submission of mine is however to avail of that "observation" of your Lordship in another context and request your Lordship to get the decision given by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the contempt matter decided against me on 8-7-1970 as Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38 of 1370 "reversed" on the basis of the position spotlighted in my letter No. 167/Peshawar, dated 28-4-1971 to your Lordship and also in my duly stamped petition dated 18-3-1971 to the Supreme Court of Pakistan embodying two points and prayers in the matter under reference. I have again cross-examined Mr. Abdul Khaliq on 2-5-1971 at Peshawar and have come to the conclusion that the "information" recorded in my letter No. 167/Peshawar, dated 28-4- 1971 to your Lordship is cent per cent. Correct. I, therefore, feel that this is a situation calling for "reversal" of the decision, dated 8-7-1970 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38 of 1970 and bringing the facts and circumstances necessitating such sue motu "reversal" of its decision by the Supreme Court on record in the P. L. D. I have full and complete confidence in their Lordships' Integrity and sense of justice and am confident their Lordships would not hesitate to admit their "error" in the matter under reference and bring it on record in the P. L. D. As such.
39. I am, your Lordship's Most respectfully, (Sd.) Karamatullah Khan 4-5-1971 EE 2/31, Nishtarabad, Peshawar City.
40. Copy submitted to General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan, President of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, with reference to my Petitions to him for remission of the fines of Rs. 200 and Rs. 2,000 imposed on by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in two separate contempt matters decided against me on 3-6-1969 and 8-7-1970.
41. (Sd.) Karamatullah Khan P. S. This letter may also kindly be brought to the notice of all the Judges of the Supreme Court with the following respectful submission from my end which is already on record with the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the context of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38 of 1970: (Sd.) Karamatullah Khan, 4-5-1971. "
42. On seeing both the letters the Hon'ble Chief Justice directed on 21-5-1971 that the respondent should be proceeded against in contempt and the Attorney-General should appear. A notice was issued to the respondent on the 16th September 1971, to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt.
43. On service of notice the respondent pleaded for postponement of the case as he was to undergo an operation on his right kidney in Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar. The request was allowed and it was ordered that the respondent will put in appearance a month after his discharge from the Hospital. He was, however, required to file a certificate of the Surgeon who was to operate on him.
44. On the 13th October 1971, the respondent applied to the Registrar to get him an interview with the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The prayer was refused whereupon at his own request the contempt case was fixed for hearing on 19-10-71.
45. The respondent appeared in person, but did not file a written statement to the show-cause notice.
46. He orally amplified that by the words: "ultra-executive" used in the endorsement to his letter, dated 5-5-1971 he meant that the Supreme Court in dispensing justice acted as an executive authority and that "infra---judicial" meant that in the performance of its functions the Supreme Court did not act as a proper Judicial Tribunal. He was adamant in making this assertion and placed before the Court copies of "my concise statement" and begged that his "exposition of the full and complete circumstances of the three cases decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan against Mr. Karamatullah" be brought on the record of the present case. He also reiterated that Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan had granted an interview to a friend of Mr. Abdul Khiliq before hearing his appeal and given an assurance to him that if the facts as explained to him were correct the decision will go in his favour. He further stated that Mr. Justice Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Mr. Justice M. R. Khan had granted an interview to Mr. Abdul Khaliq in the verandah of the Government House, Peshawar, where they were staying during the Session of the Court in which Abdul Khaliq's appeal was heard. The respondent was parti--cular that we should read the two documents, namely, "my concise statement" and "exposition of the full and complete circumstances of the three cases decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan against Mr. Karamatullah".
47. In para. 3(b) of the Concise Statement it is stated; "3(6) . . . The Supreme Court Judges appear to have be--haved in an un-judgelike manner in taking offence at that application of his to the Registrar of the Supreme Court under the circumstances explained in his post-script note to his reply dated 14-7-70 to the notice, dated 6-7- 70 served on him in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38 of 1970, against the petitioners. The Supreme Court has not made any mention of that clear, and straight reply as regards submission of the application, dated 28-4-70 to the Registrar in its judg--ment, dated 8-7-70 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38 of 1970 against the petitioner. This behaviour of their Lordships too appears to be un-judgelike and not in conformity with the Islamic spirit and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet of Islam which should be the guidelines for Judges in an Islamic State."
48. In his oral submissions, the respondent repeated the allegation that when his writ petition was pending in the High Court Mr. Aslam Khattak hosted a dinner in honour of Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan. Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Iqbal and Mr. Justice Malik Muhammad Akram before whom the writ petition was fixed for hearing attended the dinner. This created an apprehension in the mind of the respondent that he will not get justice. He wrote letters to that effect to Judges concerned. His apprehension came to be true. The writ petition was accepted; his compulsory retirement was set aside, but no notice of the plea of mala fide was taken by the learned Judges.
49. This in the opinion of the respondent had gravely prejudiced his case. A notice for contempt was issued to the respondent by the High Court on that occasion. However, he tendered an apology and no further action was taken against him.
50. The respondent also repeated the allegation that Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan had granted an Interview to a friend of Mr. Abdul Khaliq before his appeal was heard by the Supreme Court at Peshawar on the 23rd and 25th March 1970, and that Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan had promised that if the facts stated to him were correct the appeal will be decided !n favour of Mr. Abdul Khaliq.
51. Mr. Justice Yaqub Ali and Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan and Mr. Justice M. R. Khan are the Members of this Bench. To their knowledge it is utterly false that any one of them granted any interview to Mr. Abdul Khaliq or a third person on his behalf before or after his appeal was heard at Peshawar. The allegation made by the respondent was not only false, but mischievous in nature.
52. The respondent is a retired Class-I Officer of the Provincial Government and his last appointment was Inspector of Schools, Karachi. He is, therefore, wide awake man and knows what he is writing about. The letters and applications addressed by him to the Judges, the President, Chief Martial Law Administrator, Law Minister and to the other Government officials in no small measure reveal the working of his mind. He was finding fault with the judgment delivered by the Court in Civil Appeal No. 72 and the two subsequent review petitions in so far as the Court had not given a declaration that the respondent continued to remain in service after attaining the age of sixty years and that he was entitled to leave preparatory to retirement after the date of his superannuation. He was also aggrieved by the sentences of fine imposed on him in contempt matters to which reference has been made earlier. His new modus operandi was to vilify the Judges and to intimidate them by making petitions to the President and Chief Martial Law Administrator that the Judges had been guilty of misconduct and that action be taken against them. Copies of these petitions were endorsed to the Registrar of the Court to instill fear in the minds of the Judges.
53. There are different categories of contempt of Court which call for action, such as, to create a bias amongst the general public and litigants against the Court ; to scandalize the person of the Judges ; or to abuse the process of Court. The worst form of contempt of Court, however, is to hold out a threat of personal harm to a Judge. If it is allowed to go unpunished, the entire system of administering justice would collapse for no Judge whose heart throbs with fear can do justice in a cause. It is, therefore, the primary attribute of Judge to be free from fear in the performance of his functions. The oath prescribed for the Judges of the superior Courts accordingly Includes an undertaking that they will in the performance of their duties act without fear, favour or ill-will.
54. Whoever tries to undermine this fundamental quality in the Judge, therefore, deserves stringent punishment.
55. In the light of what we have said above, the respondent has been guilty of worst form of contempt of Court. He ridiculed the standard of justice administered by the highest Court of the country ; vilified its Judges ; and tried to intimidate them in order to make them fall in line with his wishes.
56. We, accordingly, sentence him to undergo six months' simple imprisonment and to pay a of fine Rs.
57. 5.000. In default, he will further under go simple imprisonment for three months.
58. In view of the age of the respondent and the office held by him, we direct that he shall be given Class-A under the Jail Manual and transferred to Central Jail, Peshawar, to which place he belongs.
59. K. B. A. Conviction recorded.