1. SAEEDULZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.--- Contempt notice was issued to Mr. Naveed Malik, a political activist for his following alleged remarks made during a press conference in a local hotel at Islamabad on 25-1-1992, which were published in English Daily `The. News' Karachi, dated 26-1-1992, under the caption `Government accused of launching smear drive against Benazir'
2. He maintained his allegations, that to avenge the happenings of December 19, 1991 in the National Assembly and to allegedly settle personal scores with the leader of the opposition Benazir Bhutto, the President personally phoned the Chief Justice of Sindh High Court recently and asked him to insult Mohtarma Bhutto when she next appeared in Court in connection with cases instituted against her. He alleged that the motive was to break her will and belittle her position publicly.
3. Continuing, his charges he said, a few days ago when Benazir Bhutto sat waiting it the room of the Registrar of the Sindh High Court, the Chief justice ordered her to leave the room and wait in the Veranda. "If not as a former Prime Minister, as the current leader of the opposition and an international figure of repute, she deserved certain basic courtesies as a lady: When questioned about the veracity of his allegations he simply said, asked the President to clarify or contradict his allegations."
4. Contempt notices were also issued to the printer, publisher, editor and he reporter of the daily `The News', since the above remarks of Mr. Naveed Malik were reported in the 26th January, 1992 issue of daily The News' Karachi.
5. In response to the contempt notices, Messrs Ghazi Salahuddin, Muhammad Haider Jafferi, Muhammad Suleman and Nasir Iqbal, the Editor, Printer, Publisher and Reporter respectively of the daily `The News' hereinafter referred to as contemners Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively) appeared with their counsel on 6-2-1992 and requested for time to file reply to the contempt notices. The notice issued to Mr. Naveed Malik (hereafter to be referred as the contemner No.5) for 6-2-1992 was returned unserved with the endorsement that the address was incomplete. It appears that contemner No.5 came to know about the contempt proceedings through the newspaper, for he addressed a letter to the senior puisne Judge of this Court, requesting for two weeks' time to put in appearance in the contempt case and also supplied his full postal address. Fresh notices in the case were accordingly issued to all the contemners including contemner No.5 on the address supplied by him for appearance in Court on 19-2-1992. On 19-2-1992, contemners Nos.1 to 4 filed, reply to the contempt notices through their counsel. Contemner No.5 also appeared and requested for one day's time to submit reply to the contempt notice which was granted and he submitted the following reply dated 19-2-1992:-- "Further to my oral apology I tender unqualified apology and surrender myself to the mercy of this Honourable Court.
6. (Sd.)
7. (Naveed Malik), Respondent."
8. The replies submitted by contemners Nos.1 to 4 to the contempt notices were as follows:-- Apology of Contemner No .1 "I, Ghazi Salahuddin, Editor of the English Daily `The News' and contemner No.1 beg to submit as under:--
(1) That the news item published in the English Daily `The News' Karachi dated 26th January, 1992 on page 4 under caption `Government accused of launching smear drive against 'Benazir' was filed by Mr. Nasir Iqbal, Reporter of `The News' at Islamabad.
(2) That on 25th January, 1992 Mir Khalil-ur-Rehman, Editor-in-Chief of the Jang Group of Newspaper died and that in the night I remained fully busy in giving coverage to the said incident and the condolence messages received throughout the day.
(3) That the news item complained of was not properly assessed by- the news room and this oversight was a result of the situation created by Mir Khalil-ur-Rehman's death.
(4) That I have highest regard of the Honourable Chief Justice and companion Judges of High Court and that the news item was not published knowingly that the same contains contemptuous matters.
(5) That I sincerely regret the inadvertent publication of the said comment made by Naveed Malik and tender my unconditional and unqualified apology for the consideration of the Honourable Court. I, therefore, respectfully pray that the Honourable Court will graciously be pleased to accept my unconditional apology and vacate the notice.
9. Karachi: (Sd.)
10. Dated 19-2-1992(Ghazi Salahuddin)
11. Contemner No:3 (Sd.)
12. Advocate of Contemner No.1 Apology of Contemners Nos.2 and 3 We, Muhammad Haider Jafferi, Manager, Javed Press and Muhammad Suleman, Senior Executive/Manager, Daily Jang, Karachi contemners Nos.2 and 13 beg to submit as under:--
(1) That Mr. Mir Javed Rahman son of late Mr. Mir Khalil-ur-Rehman is the Printer and Publisher of the English Daily `The News', Karachi who was out of Pakistan from 14th January, 1992 to 27th January, 1992.
(2) That in the absence of Mr. Mir Javed Rahman we were looking after the duties of Printer and Publisher respectively. Photostat of our acceptance dated 12January, 1992 and intimation given to the, District Magistrate (South)/D.C: by Mr. Mir Javed Rahman dated 12th January, 1992 'were already submitted op Pith February, 1992.
(3) That the Newspaper is printed in the night and sent to market for sale in the early morning and therefore, due to shortage of time it is not possible for a Printer and Publisher to look into all the matters printed and published.
(4) That the news item complained of was published in `The News', Karachi which appeared in the market for sale on the morning of 26th January, 1992 when due to said demise of Mr. Mir Khalil-ur- Rehman Editor-in-Chief of the Newspapers of Jang Group we were worried and making arrangements for his burial.
(5) That however, we offer our sincere regrets for the inadvertent publication and tender our unconditional and unqualified apology for the consideration of this Honourable Court.
13. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Honourable Court will pleased to accept our unconditional apology and vacate (Sd.)
14. (Muhammad Haider Jafferi)
15. Contemner No.2 Dated 19-2-1992(Sd.)
16. (Muhammad Suleman)
17. Contemner No.3 Advocate for Contemners Nos.2 and 3.
18. Apology of Contemner No.4 I, Nasir Iqbal, Reporter of `The News', Karachi, at Islamabad beg to submit as under:--
(1) That the contents of the news item published in `The News', dated 26-1-1992, were stated by Mr. Naveed Malik in the Press Conference at Islamabad on 25th January, 1992.
(2) That I inadvertently and under misunderstanding reported the entire statement for publication.
(3) That I offer my sincere regret for inadvertently reporting and tender my unqualified and unconditional apology for consideration of the Honourable Court.
19. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Honourable Court will be pleased to accept my apology and vacate the notice.
20. (Sd.)
21. Karachi:(Nasir Iqbal)
22. Dated 19th February, 1992.Contemner No.4 After considering the above replies of the contemners, we rejected the apologies tendered by them and posted the case for 9-3-1992 for framing of charges against them as, prima facie case of contempt was made out against all the contemners. On 9-3-1992, we framed one consolidated charge against contemners Nos.1 to 4 while separate charge was framed against contemner No.5.
23. The charges framed read as under:-- CHARGE "You, Naveed Malik made the following statement in your Press Conference which was reported in the Daily Newspaper `The News', Karachi, dated 26th January, 1992, as under:-- `He maintained his allegations, that to avenge the happenings of December 19, 1991 in the National Assembly and to allegedly settle personal scores with the leader of the opposition Benazir Bhutto the President personally phoned the Chief Justice of Sindh High Court recently and asked him to insult Mohtarma Bhutto when she next appeared in Court in connection with cases instituted against her. He alleged that the motive was to break her will and be little her position publicly.th Continuing his charges he said, a few days ago when Benazir Bhutto sat waiting in the room of the Registrar of the Sindh High Court, the Chief Justice ordered her to leave the room and wait in the Veranda. `If not as a former Prime Minister, as the current leader of the opposition and an international figure of repute, she deserved certain basic courtesies as a lady."
24. The above statement is not only factually incorrect but it tantamounts to scandalizing the Court and to bring the Court and the Honourable Judges into disrespect:'
25. The above charge has been read over to the contemner Naveed malik who is present in Court and he pleads guilty to the charge.
26. (Sd.)
27. Chief Justice Karachi:(Sd.)
28. Dated 9-3-1992Judge CHARGE "You. Ghazi Salahuddin, Muhammad Haider, Jafferi, Muhammad Suleman and Nasir Iqbal, the contemners, have reported/published in your daily Newspaper `The News' Karachi, dated 26th January, 1992, the Press Conference of the contemner Naveed Malik, as follows:-- `He maintained his allegations, that to avenge the happenings of December 19, 1991 in the National Assembly and to allegedly settle Personal scores with the leader of the opposition Benazir Bhutto, the President personally phoned the Chief Justice of Sindh High Court recently and asked him to insult Mohtarma Bhutto when she next appeared in Court in connection with cases instituted against her. He alleged that the motive was to break her will and be little her position publicly.
29. Continuing his charges he said, a few days ago when Benazir Bhutto sat waiting in the room of the Registrar of the Sindh High Court, the Chief Justice ordered her to leave the room and wait in the Veranda. `If not as a former Prime Minister, as the current leader of the opposition and an international figure of repute, she deserved certain basic courtesies as a lady."
30. The above statement published/reported by you is not only factually incorrect but it amounts to scandalizing and to bring the Court and the Judges into disrespect.
31. The above charge has been read over to the contemners Ghazi Salahuddin, Muhammad Haider Jafri, Muhammad Suleman and Nasir Iqbal who are present in Court and they plead guilty.
32. (Sd.)
33. Chief Justice Karachi:(Sd.)
34. Dated 9-3-1992Judge The contemners did not contest the above charges and pleaded guilty and one again prayed for being-pardoned. Finally, they requested for time to address the Court on the question of sentence in the circumstances of the case. We heard the learned counsel for the contemners at length.
35. The learned counsel for the contemners very vehemently argued that as the contemners have expressed remorse and have thrown themselves at the mercy of the Court by offering unconditional apology at the earliest moment, a warning to them is sufficient in the circumstances of the case. Cases of Raja Munawar and others v. State 1990 SCMR 215, Habibul Wahab Al Khairi v.
36. Sh. Shaukat Ali PLD 1976 Lah. 373 and in Re: In the matter of contempt against the daily Frontier Post PLD 1992 SC 69 were cited at the bar in support of the above contention.
37. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the contemners. We feel constrained to say that while the Courts have generally displaced a benign attitude in accepting apology from contemners in contempt cases in the solemn hope that people will realize that it is in the public interest that the Courts should be kept above all controversies in order to maintain the supremacy and independence of judicial process and Courts, we have noticed that this gracious gestures, on the part of Courts in dealing with contempt cases has been construed as a sort of weakness or inability of the Courts to deal effectively with the contemners. A general feeling has come to stay with the people that after scandalizing and slandering a Court or a Judge, even in a gross manner, the contemner can get away with it conveniently, if on the first appearance before the Court he tenders unconditional apology. Development of such altitude amongst the people towards the Courts is not only likely to erode the public confidence in the judicial process but it is also likely to lower the image of Courts and Judges besides affecting the independence of Judges in the long run. We are, therefore, of the farm view that such tendencies should be effectively curbed in public interest, to keep the stream of justice flowing unobstructed and to maintain the institutional supremacy of Courts so that public confidence in Courts remains unshaken.
38. We would like to express m unambiguous terms that an unconditional apology by the contemner in a contempt case is not a defence. It must be understood clearly that apology by a contemner does not absolve him from the consequences of the contemptuous act. Apology only serves as a mitigating circumstance in awarding punishment for the contempt. We may also state here that in a case of contempt involving published material, the author, publisher, printer and editor all are responsible for the act of contempt but the degree of their responsibility may vary according to circumstances of the case. It is also necessary to state here that position in life, social status and educational background of the contemner are also very relevant factors for determining the gravity of the offence of contempt while awarding punishment for such act.
39. Having stated the above broad principles we will now consider the conduct of each one of the contemners to determine their respective liability in the above case. It is admitted before us that the remarks quoted above were made by contemner No.5 in a press conference which was attended amongst others by contemner No.4. It is also an admitted position that the above remarks are totally false as no such incident had ever taken place. Contemner No.5 admittedly holds a responsible position in life being a politician. In fact it appears, from the press report that he one acted as Adviser to Prime Minister, of Pakistan also. Contemner No.5 is, therefore, not an ordinary man but a politician of some status. A statement from such a person is likely to be taken by the public with all seriousness and could create considerable impact on public opinion. The above quoted-remarks of the contemner No.5 undoubtedly painted a dismal image of the Judges of superior Courts. There can be no two opinions that the above remarks are likely to lower down the image of the Judges of superior Courts besides creating resentment in the public against them. The above remarks of contemner No.5, therefore, in our view constituted the-gravest conceivable slander against the Courts and the Judges. The fact that the contemners knew the statement made by him to the press was false made the act of contempt still graver. No doubt contemner No.5 when appeared before us offered unconditional apology but we would feel from his conduct and demeanour in Court that he had taken the whole affair very lightly. We are also of the view that there was no real feeling of remorse on the part of contemner No.5 as when he submitted the apology before us he just expected that this was sufficient to purge him from the act of contempt. We feel convinced that the apology by contemner No.5 did not stem from his heart because he genuinelly felt remorse on his conduct but it was more for fear of punishment for the contempt. The press conference of contemner No.5 was carried in an English daily of a very wide circulation and contemner No.5 knew very well that the statement made by him was false. He was also aware that his remarks in the press conference against the Judges of superior Courts could scandalize them and lower their image in public estimation. If he really felt remorse for his above act he had ample opportunity to issue contradiction or publish an apology for his totally unjustified utterances. He did nothing of the sort and waited-for the Court to take notice of the contempt committed by him and initiate proceedings against him. In the above stated circumstances, we are of the view that it is not a fit case in which the unconditional apology tendered by the contemner No.5 could purge him of the contempt. Since contemner No.5 belongs to political elite of the country, he is expected to behave with more caution and responsibility towards Court as his utterance are likely to create more serious impact on public opinion as compared to an ordinary man. Considering all the circumstances in the case we are of the opinion that the contemner No.5 should be awarded maximum punishment prescribed for the contempt. We accordingly convict contemner No.5 for the above act of contempt and sentence him to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of six months.
40. We now revert to the case of contemners Nos.1 to 4. Contemner No.4 is a very young man and appears to have joined the profession of journalism very recently. He stated before us that this was his first experience before the Court. Considering the young age and inexperience of contemner No.4 we think a warning will be sufficient for him.
41. With regard to contemners Nos. 1 to 3 they have raised common defence while tendering unconditional apology. It is a fact that the Editor in Chief of Jang Group of papers late Mir Khalil-ur- Rehman died in London on 25-1-1992. The press conference of contemner No.5 was reported in `The News' of 26th issue. The contemners Nos.1 to 3 have stated that on account of death of Mr. Khalil- ur-Rehman they were totally upset and therefore, could not properly check the publication of the press conference in the issue of 26th of daily `The News'. These contemners also published apologies on behalf of the Editor, Publisher, Printer and Reporter of `The News' very prominently in the 7th March, 1992 issue of `The News' Karachi expressing remorse and regret for publication of the press conference of contemner No.5, in the daily `The News' and placed it on record during the course of proceedings. Besides the fact that the sudden death of Mir Khalil-ur-Rehman may have upset the whole management of Jang group of publication and, therefore, for that reason contemners Nos.1 to 3 may have committed lapse in checking the publication of the above remarks of contemner No.5 in the 26th issue of `The News', can be ruled out, the conduct of contemners Nos.1 to 4 in publishing an apology prominently before the framing of charge in the case, in their' news do show that they genuinely felt remorse on their conduct. We accordingly, feel that a stern warning to contemners Nos.1 to 4 to be careful in future and not to peat such acts will be sufficient. Order accordingly.
42. M.B.A-/R-211/K