' NAS1M HASSAN SHAH, J.-Malik Muhammad Qasim, Advocate, filed a Writ Petition (No, 962/1976) in this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, challenging the legality of the arrest of Mr. Muhammad Haneef Ramay. During the pendency of the writ petition, on 14-5-1976, Civil Miscellaneous No, 2593 of 1976 was filed in the office averring that Muhammad Haneef Ramay bad sworn an affidavit in respect of the facts which were in his peculiar knowledge for the purpose of establishing the mala fide nature of his detention and in support of other contentions raised in the writ petition. It was submitted that as the facts deposed by him were of relevance, the aforesaid affidavit may be made a part of the record of the writ petition and be read as an integral part thereof in the interest of justice.
2. This application came up for hearing before us on 18-5-1976 and notice was issued to the Advocate-General. Mr. Muhammad Aqil Mirza, A. A. G. Who happened to be present in Court accepted the notice. Meanwhile, the affidavit attached with the application was directed to be kept in a sealed: cover and a direction issued that no one should be permitted to publish any part of the said document. Mr. Muhammad Aqil Mirza, A. A.-G. At that stage pointed out that some extracts of the affidavit had already been reproduced in the Daily "Nawa-i-Waqt" of that very day (18th May 1976) which he had seen that morning, before coming to the Court. In view of the said information a copy of the "Nawa-i-Waqt" of the said date was sent for and we observed that at page 2 of the paper some parts of the affidavit had indeed been reproduced. Consequently, rule was issued suo motu to the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the Daily "Nawa-i-Waqt", Lahore, to show cause why action should not be taken for having committed contempt of Court. The notice was in the following terms : "An application (bearing No, 2593/1976 in Writ Petition No, 962/1970 was filed in this Court with which an affidavit of Mr. Muhammad blamed Ramay was attached and it was prated that the petitioner be allowed to place on record the said affidavit and it be ordered that the same be read as an integral part of the writ petition.
(2) The above application came up for hearing before us today for the first time. However, from the Daily "Nawa-i-Waqt" of 18-5-1976, we observe that a short reproduction of the contents of the affidavit has been published even before the application came up for hearing. The publication was without the authority of the Court, and, prima fade has a tendency to prejudice the due determination of Writ Petition No, 962 of 1976.
(3) Issue notice to the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the Daily "Nawa-iWaqt", Lahore to show cause why action should not be taken against them for having committed contempt of this Court ?"
3. After the issuance of the notice the case came up for hearing for the first time on 14-6-1976. On this date the respondent was also present in person and he submitted a written apology in Court, which leads as follows : "I most sincerely regret having published the affidavit of Mr. Muhammad Baited Ramay in the Daily Nawa-i-Waqt, dated 18-5-1976 and tender my respectful unqualified apology with the assurance of my highest esteem."
Counsel for the respondent prayed that in view of the unqualified apology tendered, the rule may be discharged.
4. The learned Advocate-General, however, submitted that the apology tendered by the respondent be not accepted because it did not disclose the circumstances in which the affidavit which was published by him, came into the hands of the respondent. He also prayed for an opportunity to submit written objections to the acceptance of the apology. This prayer was granted and in the aforesaid objection it was submitted that Mr. Majid Nizami had not explained the circumstances, nor had he disclosed the facts as to how he received the affidavit of Mr. Muhammad Haneef Ramay for the purpose of publishing the same. The above non-disclosure established that the apology vas not sincere and, therefore, it should not be termed to be an unqualified apology. It was further submitted that although the parts of the affidavit were published in the Daily Nawa-i-Waqt on 18-5-1976, the apology was submitted in Court on 14-6.1976, but during the intervening period of about one month the respondent had not published any regret or unqualified apology in his newspaper making his sincere regret manifest in the public. Some other objections were also raised, but were not pressed during the course of arguments before us.
In the course of the arguments the learned Advocate-General strongly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Saaaat Khialy v. State (1) and particularly the following observations contained therein "It is a misconception to think that publication of briefs, pleadings or petitions even without comments can, in no circumstances, amount to a contempt. Such publications, if one-sided may well have the undesirable effect of prejudicing the party whose version is not also placed before the public."
' He also relied upon the case of Attorney-General of Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid (2) and upon the following observations made in Advocate-General v. Skabir Ahmad (3) it is now well-settled that all publications, which are calculated to or have the tendency to either excite prejudice against parties or their litigations while it is pending or to interfere with the due course of justice, will constitute contempt................
5. In reply, Mr. Maqbul Ahmad, Advocate, submitted that so far as the source of the affidavit is concerned, there was no secret about it, because it was no other than Mr. Ramay himself, the author of the affidavit. So far as the question as to how the same was received by the respondent is concerned, he placed on record a letter of the Public Relations Officer of the Pakistan Muslim League, dated 14-5-1976, addressed to the Editor of the Nawa-i-Waqt, enclosing therewith a copy of the affidavit, with the request that the same may be published. Thus, the objection as to the manner in which the affidavit came into the hands of the respondent stands fully explained. So far as the question of the delay in the submission of the apology is concerned, it is submitted that the same was filed on the very first opportunity that presented itself to the petitioner, namely, the first date of hearing fixed after the issuance of the notice. In this connection he relied upon the case of Fakhre Alan v. State (4) wherein contempt proceedings had been initiated against the weekly newspaper "Frontier Guardian" by the High Court at Peshawar and the respondent had submitted an unqualified apology on his first appearance before the Court. The Supreme Court held that the apology tendered by the contemner at the earliest opportunity namely, his first appearance before the Court, was erroneously rejected by the High Court. Their Lordships went on to observe that "the object of contempt proceedings is not the vindication of the character or conduct of an individual Judge, but to protect the Court from attack and calumny, so as to keep the fount of justice pure and unsullied, and to maintain public confidence in the ability and power of the Courts to administer justice. This object clearly stood achieved once the contemner had submitted a sincere and unconditional apology."
6. As for the other objection that the unqualified apology or regret had not been published in the Paper before 14th June 1976, is concerned, it was explained that the accusation against the respondent was that he had published the affidavit of Mr. Ramey even before the matter came up for hearing before the Court and if he had published the apology which was submitted in Court on the 14th June earlier, it was possible that the same (1)PLD 1962 SC 457 (2) PLD 1963 C 170
(3) PLD 1963 SC 610 (4) PLD 1973 SC 525 objection may be taken up with respect to the apology, namely, that it had been published even before the matter came up for determination before the Court.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to the case of Zahur Ilahi v. Mr. Zulfikar All Bhutto (1), especially the following observations at page 395 ' We have to remember the at this power to commit for contempt is a power which has been vested in the superior Courts as an extraordinary power and has, therefore, to be exercised with great circumspection only where it is absolutely necessary in the public interest to do so.
Comments in respect of pending proceedings are treated as contempts in order to keep the streams of justice pure and unsullied. Only those comments or remarks should, therefore, be considered to be punishable which really have a tendency to substantially prejudice the hearing of a case or to interfere with the course of justice. The question always is whether the Court before which the matter is pending, would be so influenced by the article or speech that its impartiality might be consciously or even unconsciously affected. In other words, is there any possibility of the speech or the article being calculated to prejudice either party in the pending cause?"
' The counsel has stated that the respondent had not published any comments of his own, but only a short resume of the affidavit and it did not prejudice the hearing of the case, nor has the learned Advocate-General stated how any part of the proceeding had been prejudiced. In the case of Saadar Khlaly v. The State (2) the correspondent had published a comment with regard to an issue in respect of which a proceeding was pending in Court. So far as the case of Abdul Hamid referred to above, was concerned, the contents of the petition published by the newspaper were admittedly of a scandalising character and the scandalising portions of the petition were deleted from the petition later on, on the request of the petitioner himself. The publication led to a one-sided impression in the mind of public and neither the Court had any occasion to examine the correctness or incorrectness of those allegations nor were the parties affected afforded any opportunity of answering them. The position of this case was altogether different. Any reply made to the affidavit can also be published and as already stated earlier, the learned Advocate-General was unable to point out any part of the affidavit which tended to influence the issue pending adjudication.
8. Although we are of the opinion that the respondent was guilty of indiscretion in publishing certain parts of the affidavit before the matter came up before the Court for adjudication, the question is whether he could be convicted for contempt for this premature publication. In this connection we note that no restrictions have so far been placed by this Court on the publication of the proceedings of Mr. Ramay's case. The respondent has, furthermore, tendered an unqualified apology and expressed his sincere regret for having published the affidavit and assured the Court of its highest esteem. He has also frankly disclosed the source from which the affidavit was received and the apology was submitted on the first possible opportunity. He has, therefore, made amends for his indiscretion and accordingly we are inclined to and do accept his apology and discharge the rule.
9. Before we part with the case, we express the hope that the proceedings (1)PLD1975SC383 (2) PLD 1962 SC 457 in this case will have effect on the respondent in particular as well as upon the other Editors, Printers and Publishers who must understand that they enjoy no special privilege in the matter of publications of briefs, pleadings o petitions even without comments. Such publications, if one- sided, may well have the undesirable effect of prejudicing the party whose version is also not placed before the public and would be punishable as contempt. It will be useful to restate the law on this point for guidance. Any act done or writing published which has the tendency to interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful powers of the Court amounts to contempt of Court.
Nothing is more incumbent upon Courts of justice than to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented, nor is there anything of more pernicious consequence, than to prejudice the minds of the public against persons concerned as parties in causes before the case is finally heard. In determining whether the minds of the public have been prejudiced in the above manner, neither the intention of the printers nor authors, nor the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in the publication complained of is of any consequence, for, what is paramount is to ensure that no one is permitted "to poison the fountain of justice before it begins to flow.