1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C. J.---On the 3rd of July 1973, a reference was made by the President to this Court under Article 187 of the Interim Con--stitution to determine whether it was permissible for the National Assembly to pass a resolution authorising the Government to recognize the State of Bangla Dash.
2. Mr. Mahmud Ali Kasuri, Member of the National Assembly and a Senior Advocate of the Court put in appearance on behalf of some political parties and asked for adjournment. He also made a request that notice should be served on the Lahore High Court Bar Association. Both the requests were rejected whereupon Mr. Mahmud Ali withdrew from the proceedings.
3. On 7-7-1973 the reference was answered by the Court in affirmative whereupon a resolution was moved in the National Assembly on 9-7-1973 to the effect that the Government be authorised to recognize the State of Bangla Desh. During the discussion on the Resolution, respondent No. 1, addressing the house said that, "the Supreme Court was summoned to Murree to give a particular opinion". The remark was factually incorrect.
4. Mr. Ahmad Raza Kasuri, respondent No. 2, who is a Member of the National Assembly and an Advocate of the Lahore High Court in his speech on the resolution remarked that "we can throw away the decision of the Supreme Court like a toilet paper".
5. As the remarks made by the respondents amounted to contempt of the Court, the Attorney-- General moved the present petition on 20th August 1973, praying that action may be taken against them under Article 204 of the Constitution.
6. It may be mentioned at this stage that as the remarks made by the respondents in the course of their speeches in the National Assembly were derogatory of this Court and in breach of the provisions of Article 68 of the Constitution, they were on the motion of the Law Minister expunged from the proceedings of the Assembly.
7. On taking into consideration the petition moved by the Attorney-- General, notices were issued by the Court to the respondents on 25-11-1973 to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them under Article 204 of the Constitution. On 15-5-1974, respondent No. 1 submitted tie following reply:---- "May it please your Lordship.
8. I most sincerely regret having said what is reproduced in the petition of complaint, from the debate on Bangladesh in the National Assembly on July 9, 1973, and tender my respectful apology with the assurance of my highest esteem.
9. On account of the respect that I have for this Hon'ble Court, this apology has been offered notwithstanding the immunity which every member of the Assembly is guaranteed from all proceedings in any Court in respect of anything said in the Assembly.
10. My record regarding establishment of the rule of Law, and in respect of the need to guarantee the dignity and independence of Courts is well known.
11. May I be permitted to point out that the motion made against me by the Government agencies lacks bona fades. The very description used in the title betrays it.
12. These proceedings have been initiated despite the expungement of remarks complained of and have not been instituted for the vindication of the dignity of this Hon'ble Court."
13. The second respondent filed a lengthy written statement claiming credit for holding the judiciary in the highest esteem and undertook to do so as a strong believer of the Rule of Law. It was further pleaded that under Articles 66 and 69 of the Constitution the Court "has no jurisdiction to look into the efficacy of anything said on the floor of the House" and that "whatever the answering respondent has said on the floor of the House is protected and immuned from the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court". Lastly it was claimed that as the remarks had been expunged by the National Assembly by a resolution passed on 2-8-1973 they cannot be looked into by any Court for action.
14. At the first hearing of the petition on 16th May 1974, Mr. Mahmud Ali Kasuri reiterated his apology and the Court considered it sufficient to discharge the notice issued to him. The order of the Court was, however reserved as Mr. Ahmad Raza Kasuri stuck to his defence that under Articles 66 and 69 of the 19 73 Constitution, this Court had no jurisdiction to take action against him on the basis of the remarks made on the floor of the House.
15. To hear arguments on the questions of law raised by Mr. Ahmad Raza Kasuri, the hearing of the petition was adjourned to a date in office.
16. The matter came up before the Court today whereupon Mr. Ahmad Gaza Kasuri tendered the following written apology to the Court :- "That the respondent tenders apology as he holds this Court in , high esteem.
17. He is tendering this apology notwithstanding his privilege as a Member of the Parliament which he believes, Members of the Parliament enjoy The ultimate position taken up by respondent No. 2 being similar to the position taken up by respondent No. 1 as the first hearing, the Court takes he view that he has acted wisely in purging himself of the contempt of the Court of which both the respondents had been undoubtedly guilty.
18. It is suggested by the learned Attorney-General and Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada who appeared for respondent No. 1 that in view of the apology tender by both the respondents the question of privilege claimed by respondent No. 2 under Articles 66 and 69 of the Constitution may be left for decision in future case. This appears to be the proper course to adopt in the acts of the case.
19. As both the respondents have stated unequivocally that they hold this court in highest esteem and inordinate delay has taken place in the disposal of the case, we accept the apology tendered by the respondents and direct that the notices issued to them be discharged.
20. Notice discharged.