1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---This order shall be treated as in continuation of the order, dated 10-1-1991 which was passed in connection with three press reporters one being Mr. Qaiser Butt of The Frontier Post, the respondent herein. It was then observed as follows:- "In the case of the daily `The Frontier Post' the contemptuous matter was published in its issue dated 27th September, 1990, which was a false statement in regard to certain proceedings of this Court to the effect that "the order was given in the office of the Advocate-General". This statement was attributed to one Mr. Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao, who, however, clarified his position through press stating that he had been misquoted."Mr. Qaiser Butt, Reporter, `The Frontier Post', Peshawar, has submitted his reply to the show-cause notice and after answering a few questions pertaining to his reply has ultimately requested for time to engage a counsel to represent him.The request is allowed and the proceedings against him are adjourned."
2. Today the respondent has appeared with his counsel, Mr. N.M. Khan. About a year has passed since the show-cause notice was issued in this case. During this period there has been a discernible improvement in the quality of the press coverage of Court proceedings; and, as regards the Frontier Post also, there is some difference for the better in so far as its attitude towards the coverage and comments about the Court proceedings, is concerned. In our view, it would become still better and immensely good if while making assignments for Court coverage proper education and training in that branch of journalism and its ethics should be kept in view by the Chief Editors; and with regard to the old and experienced reporters a short training facility in the same subject is provided to them as a refresher course. There would still be much better performance and results if the concerned sub-editors are also advised by the editors to keep in view an immediately visible and discoverable nexus between the headlines of the news and the detailed contents-together with facility of their further training and vigilance by the Chief Editor. It is hoped and expected that with this and other steps which the publishers and/or the Chief Editors may deem to be necessary the situation would improve to further considerable extent. It is also hoped that thus the occasion for issuing notice of contempt by the Courts regarding their functioning and Court proceedings, may not arise at all.
3. The respondent while submitting his written reply (which as noted in the earlier order of this Court it seems was without the assistance of the counsel) had made the following straightforward statement with regard to his own performance as a Reporter of the Court proceedings:- That the undersigned has no legal background and would not understand the functioning of the Judges of the Superior Courts. He has faithfully reproduced what was said by a former Chief Minister in his speech. The undersigned is aware that a clarification by the said former Chief Minister appeared in the newspaper for which he is working as a reporter. The said clarification is not made on behalf of the newspaper but Mr. Sherpao clarified his own position by stating that he was misquoted That the undersigned is not aware as to the import of the abovementioned statement reported in the other newspapers but the daily Frontier Post reproduced what was said by Mr. Sherpao in the following language:-- "He said that the stay order was given in the office of the Advocate---General and added that the Government did not even wait to let the ink of the Peshawar High Court dryed."
4. It shall thus be seen that the newspaper never quoted Mr. Sherpao as saying that a Judge of the Supreme Court had gone to the office of the Advocate-General for issuing the stay order as he put it in his clarification. Before the said clarification it has never occurred to the undersigned or to the publisher that Mr. Sherpao by stating that the stay order was given in the office of the Advocate- General meant that the Hon'ble Judge came to the office of the Advocate-General."
5. This reply gives an explanation the acceptance or otherwise of which depends upon the attitude of the respondent towards the Court and his performance as a Court Reporter. When he stated that he had no legal background so as to understand the functioning of the Judges of the Superior Courts, he, perhaps, was right because instead of there being any mess LO to malign the Court it appears that he was not clear as to what position he should have taken when answering the contempt notice. This was obviously so because he had no legal advice nor it appears he was well aware about the law of contempt. This supposition gets full support from his reiteration before us today that "had this connotation been known to him he might not have reported the matter for publication even if so stated by Mr. Sherpao as he holds this august Court in great esteem." No only this today he without any hesitation repeated the statement made in his very first response in writing to the show-cause notice issued by this Court in a somewhat lengthy reply, as its paragraph No.l. It reads as follows: "That not only the undersigned but the entire staff of The Daily Frontier Post has respect and veneration for the Honourable Judges of this august Court and they believe in the dignity and honour of the highest Court of this country and have never published a false statement in their newspaper which could scandalize an Honourable Judge of this Hon'ble Court."
6. In the light of what has been stated above, particularly the aforequoted part of paragraph No.l of his reply, and in the circumstances of this case we deem it fit and proper not to proceed any further and to drop the case against the respondent. Accordingly, the notice for contempt is discharged.