1. ANWARUL HAQ, C J.-This judgment will dispose of Criminal Original Petitions bearing Nos. K.4 of 1978 and 6-R of 1978, both of which contain a prayer for action by way of contempt of this Court against Khan Abdul Wali Khan. a leader of the National Democratic Party, on the ground that he had made highly derogatory remarks against the Supreme Court and some of its Judges during the course of speeches delivered before the members of the Bar Associations at Karachi and Rawalpindi on different dates. Ira the petition instituted at Karachi it is also mentioned that he made similar statements during the course of an interview granted to a weekly magazine called the Mayaar, published from Karachi.
2. As a result of the preliminary hearing of the two petitions on the 9th of February, 1978 notices were issued to Khan Abdul Wali Khan, and she editors, printers and publishers of the weekly Mayaar as well as the news. Papers which had prominently published the offending statements, namely the daily Taamir and the daily Hayat of Rawalpindi, daily Hurriyet and daily Sadaqat of Karachi. The respondents have appeared today before us in response to these notices. On behalf on the newspapers and the weekly Mayaar written apologies have been submitted, whereas Khan Abdul Wall Khan has made a detailed oral statement.
3. The sum and substance of the submissions made by Mr. Abdul Wali Khan is that he has the greatest respect and regard for the dignity and independence of the Judiciary, and that nothing could be farther from his mind than to attribute any motives to any Judges of the Supreme Court, or to otherwise bring them into disrepute. He submits that on the withdrawal of the case pending against him at Hyderabad he bad occasion to address the members of the different Bar Associations, and at these meetings he was questioned about the decision given by the Supreme Court in the Reference made to it against the National Awami Party by the former Government of Mr. Zulfikar A.I Bhutto, and it was in this context that he made certain remarks to explain his position.
4. He submits that at the meeting held at Rawalpindi some hostile elements tried to provoke him and in the heat of the moment he used harsh words regarding the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court in that Reference, without ever intending to cast aspersions on the Supreme Court or any of its Judges. He further states that he was also led to believe that the decision given by the Supreme Court in the Reference against the National Awami Party was only in the nature of an opinion and did not amount to a judgment, criticism of which could bring the matter within the mischief of the law of contempt. He adds that he was led to think in these terms for the reason that the Ordinance creating the Special Court at Hyderabad had contemplated that the opinion of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Reference shall be an item of evidence against him and the accused persons in that case, and that it was open to the Special Court to accept the conclusions of the Supreme Court or not. He states that as a political worker he was placed in very difficult predicament as the opinion recorded by the Supreme Court against the National Awami Party was hanging over his head like the Sword of Damocles, and he had no legal remedy to vindicate his position, and to establish his loyalty to Pakistan, and, therefore, the only way open to him was to speak up at the gatherings permissible in the present circumstances. Finally, Mr. Abdul Wali Khan states that he had already issued a press statement scion after the meeting of the Rawalpindi. Bar Association, saying that his remarks had been misconstrued and distorted, and that he had the greatest respect and regard for the dignity and independence of the Judiciary, concepts for which he had been constantly fighting and making scarifies throughout his political career. Mr. Wali Khan states that he is sorry if any remarks made by him have tended to give the impression that he was maligning the Court or any of its Judges.
5. Mr. Habibul Wahhab Elkheiri, petitioner in one of these cases, submits that he had fait it his duty to bring the matter to the notice of the Court as he was present at the meeting of the Rawalpindi Bar Association at which the offending remarks were made, and he is happy that Mr. Abdul Wall Khan has clarified his position and has reiterated his respect and regard for the Supreme Court. Mr. Kheiri, however, states that apart from expression of regret, it was appropriate that Mr. Abdul Wali Khan should a press his determination not to repeat remarks of this kind. Mr. Zahoorul Haq, Advocate, appearing for Mr. Abdul Wali Khan, as well as Mr. Abdul Wali Khan himself have immediately responded by stating that it could never be his intention to repeat any such remarks which might give offence to the Supreme Court.
6. Mr. Noor Ahmed Noori, appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the Karachi Petition, submits that while the explanation given Mr. Abdul Wali Khan regarding the provocation given to him by certain members of the Bar at the Rawalpindi meeting may be accepted as correct, there is no explanation for the remarks contained in the interview which he gave to the weekly Mayaar. It appears to Mr. Noori that in the circumstances the explanation given by this respondent is not entirely satisfactory.
7. Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada, the learned Attorney-General appearing as the Law Officer of the Court, submits that prima facie the statements attributed to Khan Abdul Wali Khan did amount to contempt as they had a tendency to bring the authority of the Supreme Court into disrepute, but he feels satisfied with the explanation given by Mr. Abdul Wali Khan in Court as to the circumstances in which he was driven to make these observations in order to defend his position as a political leader. The learned Attorney-General points out, however, that Mr. Abdul Wali Khan is not correct in saying that the decision recorded by the Supreme Court in the Reference in question was only in the nature of an opinion, as this question had been specifically dealt with by the Court on that occasion and it was held that the decision required in the case under section 6 of the Political Parties Act, 1962, as amended was in the nature of a final judicial determination, as the words used in the relevant section are "final decision", and not opinion. The learned Attorney- General also says that prima facie it was open to Mr. Abdul Wali Khan to file a review petition in the Supreme Count if he was not satisfied with the decision tendered by it in the Reference. Finally, Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada submits that in somewhat similar circumstances a press statement issued by the former Prime Minister Mr. Zulfikar A.I Bhutto was taken into account by the Supreme Court in coming to the conclusion that the necessary amends had been made, even if a previous statement of the Prime Minister had tended to amount to contempt: After considering the statement made before us by Mr. Abdul Wali Khan as to the circumstances in which he came to make the offending remarks, and the submissions made by the learned Attorney-General as well as the petitioners in both three cares, we are of the view that the dignity and the authority of the Court have been duly vindicated, and it is not necessary to proceed any further in this behalf. Mr. Abdul Wall Khan has unambiguously reiterated his respect and regard for the Supreme Court, and also the fact that he had no intention of maligning the Court or attributing motives to any of its Judges, and that he was sorry if any statements or remarks made by him bad tended to give a contrary impression. He has also expressed his determination not to repeat such remarks in future.
8. We have also taken note of the fact that three days after the meeting of the Rawalpindi Bar Association he lead issued a signed press statement explaining the circumstances of that meeting and affirming his respect and regard for the superior judiciary. The learned Attorney-General is right in saying that in similar circumstances an explanatory press statement made by the former Prime Minister was accepted by the Supreme Court as indicating that he did not intend to show any disrespect to the Supreme Court. See Ch. Zohur Ellahi v. Mr. Zulfiqar A.I Bhutto and 2 others (PLD 1975 SC 1) In the circumstances tire would discharge the notice issued to Mr. Abdul Wali Khan.
9. Before Parting with this aspect of the case it a necessary to point out that Mr. Abdul Walt Khan is not correct in thinking that the supreme Court had recorded only an opinion in the Reference made to it by the Federal -Government regarding the National Awami Party. As stated by the leaned Attroney-General, this point was specially dealt with by this Court while examining the jurisdiction conferred cry it by section 6 of the Political Parties Act. 1962, and on page 104 of the Report in Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Abdul Wali Khan (PLD 1976 SC 57) it was stated that the words final decision of the Supreme Court as used in section 6 aforesaid meant nothing leas than a final judicial determination of the question referred to it, as distinct from an advisory opinion.
10. Turning-now to the case of the newspapers, we find that although they have tendered unconditional apologies, the fact remains, that they under no compulsion of circumstances to publish the offending remarks bold headlines. This Court has on several occasions emphasised the no for the newspapers to exercise restraint in reporting matters which might have a tendency to cast reflections on the judiciary of the Country. Whit therefore, accepting their apologies arid discharging the notices issued to them, we would like to place on record our displeasure at the lack of sense of responsibility shown by dress newspaper as wellthe weekly Mayaar to publishing statements which prima facie amounted to contempt of Court. We hope that in future they would exercise due care and caution in giving publicity to much matters.
11. S. A.H.. Notices Discharged revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.