1. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.-----Applicant, who is an Advocate of the High Court has filed an application under sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 on 9-3-1983 against five respondents namely Khalid M. Ishaque, Advocate, Mir Shakil-ur-Rehman's, Managing Editor of Daily News and Weekly Periodical "MAG", Manzoor Ahmad Khan, publisher, Mir Javid-ur-Rehman's, Printer and State.
2. In the said application a portion from the Press statement of respondent No. 1 Khalid M. Ishaque Published in the issue of "MAC" March 3-3-1983 was reproduced and assailed as highly contemptuous of the High Courts and Supreme Court and their Judges. Relevant offending paragraphs are reproduced as under: "Frankly speaking our judicial system needs a complete renovation. Moreover, the present number of Courts are absolutely insufficient to meet the increasing demands. This is a must if we are really interested in quick disposal of cases. Now take up the position of our Judges. A good deal of amount is required for the establishment of a refresher course for our Judges. You must be aware of the fact that only those people become Judges in our country who fail to become good Lawyers, and they are those who fail to maintain a certain standard as a lawyers which means only the left overs become Judges in our country. Thus, it is clear that only the novice join the Judiciary. Now you would agree with me that a novice remains a novice unless he is trained thoroughly."
3. Vide order, dated 13-3-1983 notices were directed to be issued against respondents 1 to 4 to appear in the Court to show-cause why they should not be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. Vide order, dated 30-3-1983 applicant was allowed to join K.M. Amer, Staff correspondent of "MAC" Weekly as respondent No. 6 and a similar show cause notice was issued against him.
4. On 17-4-1983 applicant and the respondents appeared in person with the exception of respondent No. 2, Mir Shakil-ur-Rehman's, on whose behalf application was filed by his counsel for exemption on the ground that he was in Lahore in connection with his business. On that day respondent No. 1 filed his written statement in which he took the stand that the offending article in question published in the issue of "MAC" on 3-3-1983 did not reflect his form or substance and further that on 10-3-1983 he had written a letter of protest to the Editor of "MAG" on the basis of which apology was published in the issue of "MAG" of 17th March, 1983 alongwith that letter. On behalf of respondent No. 2 (Mir Shakil-ur-Rehman's) a written unconditional apology was filed duly signed by him.
5. Respondent No. 3 Manzoor Ahmad Khan filed affidavit in which he claimed that he was not Publisher of Weekly "*AG" and his name did not appear on the print line in any capacity whatsoever. It was further stated therein that Mir Shakil-ur-Rehman's was the publisher and this fact was further confirmed by Mir Shakil-ur---Rehman's in his written apology in which it has been admitted that Manzoor Ahmad Khan was not the publisher-of the said weekly.
6. Respondent No. 4 Mir David-ul-Rehman's also filed unconditional written apology. Respondent No. 6 K.M. Amer filed in the Court written statement, dated 9-4-1983 containing unqualified apology.
7. On the same day i.e. 17-4-1983 unconditional written apologies of respondent No. 2 Mir Shakil-ur- Renman and respondent No. 4 Mir David-ur-Rehman's were accepted for the reasons that they did apologise at the very initial stage of proceedings and their apologies were since and unqualified.
8. Respondent No. 3 Manzoor Ahmad Khan was left out for the reason that according to him he was not the publisher of the "MAC" at the relevant time and there was no material to the contrary.
9. Consequently Charge was framed against respondents Nos. 1 and 6. Charge was read out to them to which they pleaded not guilty and fur--there undertook to make defence. The following objectionable portions duly numbered from the published interview in question reflected in the Charge are reproduced hereunder:- "(1)That measures be taken to educate Judges, as otherwise it would not be possible to improve the quality of judgment and speed up the disposal of cases.
10. (2)That a rich man by appointing a prominent lawyer could influence a Judge prychologically if not practically.
11. (3)That those people become Judges in our country, who fail to become good lawyers, or, to maintain a certain standard as a lawyer, which means only the left overs become Judges in our country.
12. (4)That only novices join the judiciary, and such persons continue to remain novices."
13. Charge against respondent No. 6 is that he published the said article containing offending portions. It is stated in the charge that both respondents 1 and 6 nave respectively by making the statement and publishing of the same, committed an offence punishable under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976.
14. On the same day that 17-4-1983 respondent No. 1 filed a statement in writing in the court stating therein that before framing of Charge on a query from the Court respondent No. 6 (K.M. Amer) admitted that the phraseology used in the reporting of interview was his own. Request was made that since admission of respondent No. 6 was not incorporated in the order Sheet, statement in writing submitted be placed on the record. On 8-5-1983 respondents Nos. 1 and 6 filed further written statements after pleading not guilty to the Charge. On that day notice was issued to Wahab Siddiqui, Assistant Editor of "MAC" to show cause why he should not be joined as Respondent/ Contemnor. This was done on the application filed by Mr.A.I. Chundrigar, Advocate for the respondent No. 6 (K.M. Amer) in which it was stated that respondent No. 2 (Mir Shakil-ur- Rehman's) in his written apology maintained that at the time of publication in question, he was away to Lahore and in his absence the control and superintendence of the weekly 'MAC' was entrusted to Wahab Siddiqui, Assistant Editor. On 9-5-1983 Wahab Siddiqui appeared in the Court in response to the notice and on query from the court admitted that at the time of publication of article in question, he was Assistant Editor of "MAG" and although he did not edit the article but had approved the same for publication. Consequently the charge was suitably amended to include Wahab Siddiqui on the ground that he had authorised publication of article in question. Wahab Siddiqui who was joined as respondent, No. 7 pleaded not guilty to the charge respondent No. 7 was given time to file statement and also to produce transcript of the article.
15. After the charge the three respondents filed further written statements /affidavits. In the second written statement filed in the Court on 7-5-1983 respondent No. 1 reiterated his previous stand that there was misreporting end even the statement of Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim was also misreported in consequence of which apology was published or. 17-3-1983 in the "MAG". It was further stated that misreporting has been admitted in the apology published by the 'MAGI and respondent No. 6 also categorically admitted that phraseolgy used in the reporting of interviews was his own. So far portion mentioned at No. 1 in the Charge is concerned he stated that also his views have not been properly projected in the printed material but they related to the idea of providing refresher courses to Judges, which has been recommended at the highest judicial quarters and accepted by the Government of Pakistan providing specialised refresher/ training courses to members of lower judiciary at the Islamic University outside Pakistan. In support thereof he has produced cuttings of reports of the speeches of the President of Pakistan, Judges of Superior Courts, Ministers and others and filed Annexures "R-5 to R-11/G".
16. About the portion at No. 2 in the Charge he answered that the substance lay not in the answer but in the question and about/framing of which he was neither responsible nor answerable.
17. Respondent No. 6 took up the idea from persistent public expression reported from highest authorities in Pakistan and out side. Copies of cuttings were annexed as "R-2 to R-12-A and R-57".
18. About the portion at No. 3 in the Charge it was stated that the report has failed to oring out a clear distinction between the Judges of the superior Courts and those on the inferior Courts. Original answer was in regard to the lower Courts. Answering respondent was making point with regard to emoluments and conditions of subordinate judiciary as being inadequate.
19. About the portion at No. 4 in the Charge it was stated that the reference was with regard to recruitment to lower judiciary and the word "novice" was used and its dictionary meaning is "one who is new to the circumstances in which he is placed; a beginner". It was used in contradistinction with experienced persons. It was further asserted by the answering respondent that there were so many linguistic and factual errors in the printed interview. Answering respondent also stated that he is on record that curing his 5 years standing in the profession he had always endeavoured for enhancement of the status and jurisdiction of the Courts. He further submitted that regardless of his disowning the contents, as per present state of law the publication in question did not constitute contempt of Court. Answering respondent annexed with the written statement about 70 documents including reports from newspapers of speaches made by high personages in judiciary and the Government on the subject of working of Courts.
20. Immediately after the publication of article in question respondent No. 1 addressed a letter to the Editor MAG on 10th March, 1983 in which he complained that interview was incomplete and it had to be carried on further and Amer had stipulated that nothing would be printed without first showing the draft and getting final clearance from respondent No. 1. He gave such undertaking when it was made clear to him that subject of Courts and delays of law was both important and sensitive and needed careful handling. Emphasis was laid on the act that comments were made on the subject of inadequate emoluments and service conditions in subordinate judiciary. In tact in the next issue of "MA G" unconditional apology was published by the Editor alongwith letter of respondent No. 1 and also that of Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim who had also addressed a letter to the Editor on similar lines objecting to the misreporting of his interview. It was contended on behalf of respondent No. 1 that he has committed no contempt for the reason that his case is covered by proviso (i) to section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 as he was making fair comments about the general working of Courts in good faith in the public interest and in temperate language and in doing that he has been grossly misreported by the correspondent who had interviewed him. As soon as this matter was brought to his knowledge, he took objection and wrote such letter by way of protest to the Editor, who published an apology in the periodical alongwith his letter. Not only this but the factum of misreporting is admitted by respondent No. 6 during the proceedings in the Courts. It would be pertinent to point out that the offending article was published in the issue of weekly "MAG" of March 3-3-1983. Respondent No. 1 sent his letter of protest to the Editor on 10th March, 1983 and apology alongwith letter of respondent No. 6 was published in the issue of March 17-3-1983. It would be expedient at this stage to reproduce the apology published in the issue of 'MAGI, which is as under:- An apology "MAG Issue No. 9 (March 3-9) carried an article Judiciary Neglected is Justice Denied' by our correspondent K.M. Amer. This article also carried interviews of two very senior lawyers of the country Mr. Justice (Retd. Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim and Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque, who have long and reputed standing in the profession of law and are known to have very clear and rational views on the system of justice prevalent in the society. It was in view of their vast knowledge on the subject 'and long and reputed standing in the profession that we included their interviews in the abovementioned article. We are pained to know that the points raised by them have not been properly and correctly reported by our correspondent. The reporting has created an impression which they never intended. We have received letters from Messrs Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim and Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque expressing their feelings about the manner in which their interviews have been reported. They have also explained as to what they really wanted to say. We are publishing these letters with our deepest regret at this error which was un intentional, we sincerely hope that the erroneous impression created by our correspondent's reporting will be undone by this explanation.
21. We also tender our sincere and unconditional apology to honourable Courts Editor."
22. Letter of respondent No. 1 addressed to the Editor is reproduced as under:- "Sir, Whereas normally a person should feel happy about publication of his opinions about an important national problem, I have been pained by the manner in which parts of my incomplete interview have been reported in your issue of 3rd March, 1983.
23. Before talking to me Mr. Amer had stipulated that nothing would be published without being shown to me. On the day the interview was taken, it had remained incomplete and Mr. Amer had agreed to continue it the day after. Even before he left me I had emphasised that the subject of Courts and delays of law was both important and sensitive and would need careful handling. He reiterated the promise that nothing would be published without my clearing the final draft.
24. Part of the interview has been published, and I am sorry to say that in several respects it does not reflect my views both because the interview itself remained incomplete, and also because in parts it contains incorrect and partial reporting. For instance, in regard to part of the lawyers in the delays in disposal of cases I had suggested that all the blame could not be placed at the door of the lawyers, nor, therefore, legal decisions would be any the quicker if lawyers were excluded from some judicial proceedings. Only some part of the entire argument in this behalf is reflected.
25. What however brothers me most is the insensitive manner in which sweeping statements have been attributed to me about recruitment of Judges. I do not at all contribute to the assertion that all or even the majority of Judges are from the ranks of briefless lawyers. In fact some of the Judges in the superior Courts enjoyed very Lucrative practice before joining the judiciary. I was, and am of the view that the problems of judiciary in so far as emoluments of Judges of the superior Courts and other Courts are concerned, are different. The salary and emoluments of Judges other than the Judges of the superior Courts are so grossly inadequate that the choice gets limited because a great many of the comparatively prosperous lawyers do not feel motivated to join the judiciary at levels other than High Courts. In fact the emoluments are so low and inadequate that majority of young men who are picked up for judicial service are professionally novices. I have always felt that notwithstanding the enormous handicaps and denial of due and deserved emolu--ments, the performance of our judiciary has been better than in other sectors of the State. This is even more true of the Superior Courts. I am sorry to say that in regard to the above matters the manner in which my interview has been presented is most unsatisfactory. The stoic manner in which our judiciary both of superior Courts and others has responded to the problems can only be praised.
26. They hardly receive the praise and assistance which they are entitled to. In this behalf the problems faced by both Judiciary and the legal profession need to be attended to adquately.
27. Now in this issue of "MAG" containing apology after cover page on the first page inside, there is separate half portion specifying "contents". In the first column on the left hand side name of Editor is mentioned as Mir Shakilur Rehman's and Assistant Editor as Wahab Siddique. At the foot of this page name of publisher is given as Mir Shakil-ur-Rehman's and printer as Mir Javed Rehman's. According to Mir Shakilur Rehman's at the relevant time when publication in question was made he was away in Lahore and in his absence control and superintendence of weekly "MAG" was in the hands of Assistant Editor Wahab Siddiqui. Respondent No. 6 K.M. Amer appeared before the Court on 17-4-1983 in response to the notice and stated that he recorded interview of respondent No. 1 and had substantially published what respondent No. 1 had said: He further stated that he had taken notes in long hand which he destroyed after publication. To a query from the Court he replied that phraseology used in the reporting of interview was his own. After framing of the Charge, respondent No. 6 filed written statement in which he reiterated his unconditional apology filed earlier but by way of explaining the circumstances stated further that he was assigned this job of interviewing respondent No. 1 and Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim by Wahab Siddiqui, Assistant Editor.
28. He interviewed them in the middle of February,1983r respondent No. 1 was interviewed between 7- 30 and 9-00 p.m. And Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim on the same day between 5-00 and 6-00 p.m.
29. About respondent No. 1 it was stated by respondent No. 6 that notes were prepared by him in long hand and questions appearing in the "MAC" of 3-3-1983 were not framed by him prior to the interview. Respondent No. 6 gave any promise or undertaking to the respondent No. 1 to get the final draft of interview approved. He further stated that after taking the notes an long hand, he had typed one copy in the office of "MAGI' and took it personally to the Assistant Editor Wahab Siddiqui who went through it, approved it and in the normal course he handed it over to Mr. Khurshid Alam, Sub-Editor. Wahab Siddiqui did not see anything objectionable in the material of interview from point of view of contempt. On the contrary he complimented him for obtaining interviews of such important personalities. It was further stated by him that in such circumstances when the matter was published with the approval of Editor, responsibility lies on him. He further confirmed that at the relevant time Wahab Siddiqui was for all practical purposes the Editor in Charge of "MAG", as Mir Shakil-ur-Rehman's was away in Lahore as resident Editor of "JANG" for the period of ii years during which time he normally lived in Lahore. About his admission of "phraseology was mine" respondent No. 6 stated that he did not mean thereby that language of the interview was his because he was only a Journalist and was not acquainted with the working system of judiciary. What he really meant was that order of phraseology of interview was his as he assigned his own priority and order to the phrases and paragraphs of interview. He further explained that when he used the words that phraseology was his own in the Court he was overawed by the august atmosphere of the Court where he had appeared for the first time in his life. In paragraph 17 of the Written statement, respondent No. 6 disassociated himself from the apology published in "MAG" on 17-3-1983 to the extent that points/raised in the interview were not properly and correctly 'reported and erroneous impression created by the corres--pondent reporting was being undone by that explanation. He disowned this part of apology by claiming that in doing so the blame was put on him for incorrect reporting. He further stated that he was not consulted at all before this apology was issued in "MAG". In paragraph 18 of the written statement, respondent No. 6 stated that on 10-3-1983 Wahab had shown him the letter received from respondent No. 1. He spoke to him on telephone and respondent No. 1 informed that one Advocate had filed contempt application and if he had used the words "lower Judiciary" then there would have been no occasion for contempt application. It is further claimed in that paragraph that he told respondent No. 1 that he had not used the words"
30. Lower judiciary".
31. Respondent No. 7 Wahab Siddiqui filed a long written statement running into eight pages on 26-6- 1983. In this written statement he reproduced apology published in weekly "MAG" and also reiterated his own apology filed earlier in the Court. He requested that his apology should be accepted on the same lines on which apologies of Editor and publisher and printer were accepted by the Court. While explaining the circumstances it was stated by him that he assigned the interviewing of respondent No. 1 and Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim to respondent No. 6 and when the script was brought to him for perusal by respondent No. 6, he was apprehensive about its being contemptuous in nature and he asked respondent No. 6 to check up again with respondent No. 1.
32. Respondent No. 6 assured him that he had already checked up with respondent No. 1 who stated that the article was not contemptuous. After that he just wrote on 'top "Interview of Khalid Ishaque" and handed over the script to his Sub-Editor Kursheed Alam for the purpose of sub-editing. Even Mr. Khursheed Alam also insisted that the matter must be sorted out with respondent No. 1 and after respondent No. 6 did that then the article was published. It was further explained by this respondent that in such circumstances he had used the word before Court "approved" with regard to this article for publication. It is further stated by respondent No. 7 that after he received letters from Messrs Khalid Ishaque and Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim, he showed these letters to respondent No. 6 who admitted that he had agreed to show the script to respondent No. 1 but did not do so and further admitted that interview was also incomplete. He tried to contact respondent No. 1 on telephone but he was not available. Respondent No. 6 admitted his mistake and apologised and promised to behave in future in a more responsible manner. Respondent No. 6 also admitted that he did not complete interview of respondent No. 1 with regard to the portion related to the Kazi Courts, because that subject was out side his assignment. It is further stated by respondent No. 7 in his written statement that he asked respondent No. 6 to contact immediately respondent No. 1 on telephone which he did and he himself also spoke to respondent No. 1 who complained that interview was incomplete and respondent No. 6 did not show him the script and he spoke about the lower judiciary and at some places language used by respondent No. 6 was harsh. Respondent No. 7 further stated that apology was published in the weekly "MAC" which was shown to respondent No. 6 and he did not object to it.
33. Respondent No. 6 filed rejoinder in which allegations made by respondent No. 7 in his written statement were denied. What really appears is the fact that both respondents Nos. 6 and 7 who both, belong to weekly "MAG" have thrown blame on each other. Original script was not produced in the Court by either of them. So far the factum of misreporting is concerned, it stands admitted.
34. Even if the script had been produced in the Court it would not have helped much for the reason that initially as admitted by respondent No. 6 K.M. Amer he took notes in long hand at the time of interview and subsequently prepared script in the office of "MAG". Production of that script could have at the most shown whether Wahab Siddiqui had objected to it or not. In any case that script could not have helped the Court to find out as to what extent there was misreporting because respondent No. 1 did not give a written script to K.M. Amer as it was an oral interview and the script was admittedly prepared by respondent No. 6. Now whether the script is produced or not regardless of that it can be easily said that both respondents Nos. 6 and 7 namely K.M. Amer and Wahab Siddiqui are responsible for misreporting of the article in question which was published in the issue of "MAG" of March 3-9-1983.
35. So far the legal aspect is concerned, Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 confers upon the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the High Courts, power to punish a person for contempt of Court in accordance with law. Persuant to this provision in the Constitution, Contempt of Court Act, 1976 has been enacted, which has repealed the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 which held the A field previously. Previous law on the subject was very brief containing only three sections conferring in section 2 thereof power on superior Courts to punish contempt and providing in section 3 thereof limit of punishment for contempt of Court. As against that the law in, the subject now inforce is very elaborate containing 12 sections and during inter alia specifically contempt of Court. Definition so provided in section 3 thereof is as under:- "Whoever disobeys or disregards any order direction or process of a Court, which he is legally bound to obey: or commits a wilful breach of a valid undertaking given to a Court; or does anything which is intended to or tends to bring the authority of a Court or the administration of law into disrespect or disrepute, or to interfere with or obstruct or interrupt or pre--judice the process of law or the due course of any judicial proceedings, or to lower the authority of a Court or scandalize a Judge in relation to his office, or to disturb the order or decorum of a Court, is said to commit'
36. Contempt of Court'."
37. Not only that but in the proviso of this section ten defences have been provided which have been declared to be not amounting to commission of contempt of Court. In the instant case contempt alleged is attracted by "or does anything which is intended to or tends to bring the authority of a Court or the administration of Law into disrespect or disrepute". Respondent No. 1, has taken defence of fair comments about the general working of Courts made in good faith in the public interest and in temperate language which is, contemplated in item No. (i) of ten defences envisaged in proviso to section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. Before entering upon this defence he has pleaded misreporting in consequences of which he has disowned the version which has appeared in published article in question. When the published article came to his notice he took objection and wrote a letter of protest to the Editor. Which has been published alongwith apology at the earliest possible opportunity. Contention of respondent No. 1 stands sufficiently substantiated with material available on the record as stated above and no further action is warranted against him. Case against respondents Nos. 6 and 7 is on different footing. Both are directly connected with and responsible for offending publication of the article in question which amounts to contempt of Court. Not only that but misreporting and contemptuous nature of the article in print is admitted specifically in the apology published in the said periodical.
38. For the facts and reasons stated above, we discharge respondent No. 1 on the ground that Charge against him is not proved. We convict respondent No. 6 K.M. Amer under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 for being directly responsible for publication in question and sentence him to the imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.250 in default of the payment whereof, he would suffer S.I. For seven days. Likewise, we also convict respondent No. 7 Wahab Siddiqui but keeping in view circumstances explained by him, we let him of with admonition to be careful in future in the matter of publication. We have taken such lenient view of the reasons that the mistake was realised and at the earliest opportunity apology was published in the periodical and also both respondents Nos. 6 and 7 had tendered un--qualified written apologies in the Court.