MAZNOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.--- Mr. M.D. Tahir, an Advocate of this Court filed this petition on 1-10- 1988 under Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 3/4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1976 against the respondents with a prayer to punish them for having defied the orders of this Court.
2. The petitioner maintains that a Full Bench of this Court was constituted for disposal of Writ Petitions Nos.3824, 4773, 3896, 4774, 4775, 4800, 4540, 4825, 4855, 4090, 4979, 4780 and 5015 of 1988, wherein the validity of dissolution of the National Assembly by the late President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq and the Provincial Assembly of Punjab by the then Governor of the Punjab respectively were called in question. The Full Bench vide short order, dated 27-9-1988 announced judgment to the following effect:-- "For detailed reasons to be recorded, later and soon, it is held that the grounds given for dissolution of National Assembly and the Provincial Assembly of Punjab are so vague, general or non-existent that the orders are not sustainable in law. Such like orders can always be passed at any time. The Constitution does not envisage dissolution of Assemblies at will.
But in view of the fact that the spirit of the Constitution is to bring about and run the affairs of the State in a democratic manner for which explicit provisions are made thereunder and in consequence of which the Acting President has taken over and announced that elections to the representative institutions, the National and Provincial Assemblies shall be held as earlier announced by the late President on 16th of November, 1988 and the power transferred to the elected representatives in accordance with the Constitution, the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the constitution wilt not permit restoration of the dissolved Assemblies. Rather it will call for that no interference is made in the process of bringing about democratic policy. The will of the people is neither to be blocked nor thwarted. Let the country be put on rails to move on Constitutional lines befitting a free and independent nation."
The respondents Nos.1 to 3 while telecasting the news at 9 p.m. Deliberately ignored the first paragraph of the order wherein the order dissolving the Assemblies was held non-sustainable at the instance of the caretaker Government thereby the people of Pakistan were intentionally deceived. The respondents committed contempt of this Court and arc liable to be punished. It was argued that the people of Pakistan generally and the illiterate masses particularly were kept in dark holding the orders of the late President and the then Governor of the Punjab dissolving the Assemblies as unsustainable.
2. The parawise comments to this petition submitted by respondents Nos.1 and 2 controverted the averments made by the petitioner. It was denied that they deliberately omitted to telecast the entire gist of the order of this Court. It was explained that they could not possibly telecast the entire order within short period of the news. The news item was received late in the day and being of national importance was hurriedly telecast on the same day. They however, tendered unconditional apology if their action or omission in any manner constituted the commission of the contempt of Court.
3. Respondent No.3, in his reply also controverted the averments made in the petition. It was categorically denied to have deliberately defied order of this Court by twisting the facts mentioned in the order. He, however, tendered unconditional apology if as a result of omission or commission the order of this Court was not correctly reported by the concerned reporter.
4. The petitioner in support of his petition submitted that the respondents deliberately omitted to telecast complete and correct import of the judgment of this Court and thereby rendered themselves liable to punishment by not acting justly and fairly for which they are under legal obligation. In support of his submission he relied on Saadat Khialy, Staff Reporter and others v. The State and another PLD 1962 SC 457, Crown v. Faiz Ahmed Faiz and others PLD 1950 Lah. 22, The Crown v. Amin-ud-Din Sahrai and others PLD 1949 Lah. 410 (F.B.), Mankad Probadhehandra v. Shah Pranlal Nenchand AIR 1954 Kutch 2 (Vol. 41, C.N.2), Rajendra Kumar Garg v. Shafiq Ahmad Azad 1957 All. 37, Rao Harnarain Singh Sheoji Singh v. Gumani Ram Arya AIR 1958 Pub. 273, Ramniklal Nanalal v. Shah Pranlal Nanchand AIR 1952 Kutch 74, The State v. The Editors and Publishers of Eastern Times and Prajatantra AIR 1952 Orissa 318, Leo Roy Frey v. Prasad .And others AIR 1958 Pb.
377, Chunilal Khan v. Shyamlal Sukhram etc. AIR 1959 Mad. Pra. 50 and L.S. Sukla v. Ishwarchandra Jain AIR 1955 M.B. 183:
5. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the respondents in their honest estimation telecast the import of the order of this Court without any addition or alteration. It was argued that the petitioner did not in verbatim quote the telecast news for comparison with the text of the short order. In any case they tendered unconditional apology if by omission or commission their action fell within the ambit of commission of contempt of Court..
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 stated that the news was passed on, to the Television authorities for telecast. The text of the telecast news having been not incorporated in this petition it was hardly possible to assume that there was either omission, addition or alteration in the news provided by the concerned Press Reporter for telecast.
7. We have considered the contentions raised by the petitioner in the light of the documents on the rile. The petitioner has not denied that the news about the order of this Court was telecast after the same had been announced there was, therefore, no matter pending for judicial adjudication. The petitioner has not reproduced in verbatim the news telecast about the order. In the absence whereof, it is not possible to visualise the import and text of the news telecast for comparison if there was some omission, alteration or addition thereof.
8. The perusal of the precedents cited by the petitioner by and large relate to the news items having appeared in the press during the pendency of the lis between the parties likely to influence the decision of the Court to be delivered by the Court. These precedents are, therefore, distinguishable and not relevant to the point in-issue.
The point which calls for determination is as to whether the respondents deliberately omitted to telecast any portion of the order of this Court with a view to misguide the people and if so it amounted to commission of the contempt of Court. The petitioner has not brought on the file any document to show conclusively that the respondents intentionally did not telecast the entire text of the order in the news. The mere allegations formulated through the news items, appearing in the press are of no legal significance.
9. We find no substance in this petition and accordingly dismiss it.