Power of Contempt-Contempt of Court--Exercise of--Scope of--It is emphasized that even otherwise, power of contempt is exercised sparingly--It is not a power meant to protect a judge as an individual nor latter's dignity--

 PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 655

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--

----Art. 204--Constitutional petition--Power of contempt of Court--Administration of justice--Exercise of--Scope of-- There is no cavil to proposition that judges are not above law and they are accountable--Bonafide criticism is an integral part of accountability of judicial officers--A judge who ceases to hold a judicial office upon retirement instantly severs his or her connection with judicial organ and Courts--A judge after retirement, therefore, attains status of a private citizen--Such a person is no more a member of 'Court' in context of Article 204 of Constitution nor under Ordinance of 2003--However, a judicial officer, after his retirement, is not without a remedy in case latter considers to have been maligned or his respect lowered in eyes of people--As a private citizen it remains open to a retired judicial officer to seek remedies available in a Court of law--However, offence of contempt is not attracted in case of a retired judge because after retirement latter attains status of a private citizen. [Pp. 656 & 657] A & B

[1936] 1 All ER 704.

Power of Contempt--

----Contempt of Court--Exercise of--Scope of--It is emphasized that even otherwise, power of contempt is exercised sparingly--It is not a power meant to protect a judge as an individual nor latter's
dignity--Judges are entrusted with an onerous duty to serve people through fountain of justice and they are, therefore, not immune from public scrutiny nor criticism--An independent judge would not be influenced nor affected in any other manner because of public criticism--The authority of a judge is not dependent on words of Constitution but, rather, rests on public respect and confidence of people. [P. 657] C

Administration of Justice--

----Power of contempt--Exercise of--The exercise of power of contempt would be justified only if it is in public interest i.e. to protect rights of litigants during pending proceedings or when it appears that an act or omission is calculated to interfere with due administration of justice--Being magnanimous is an essential attribute of an independent and impartial judge because of exalted position and divine nature of judicial functions. [P. 657] D

Ms. Kulsum Khaliq Advocate for Petitioner in person.

Date of hearing 26.11.2021.

 PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 655
[Islamabad High Court, Islamabad]
Present: Athar Minallah, C.J.
KULSUM KHALIQ--Petitioner
versus
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, etc.--Respondents
Crl. Orig. No. 314 of 2021, decided on 26.11.2021.

Order

Ms. Kulsum Khaliq, [hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner"], is an enrolled Advocate of the High Court. The petition in hand has been filed under Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as the "Constitution"] read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of 2003"]. The Petitioner has prayed that contempt proceedings be initiated against Respondents No. 4 and 5.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner, as stated in paragraph 4 of the petition, that Respondents No. 4 and 5 attempted to 'scandalize the character assassination in front of media in public-at-large of the former Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar'. The Petitioner was asked whether Respondents No. 4 and 5 had said anything against this Court or its present honourable judges, calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice or to prejudice pending proceedings. She has answered in the negative.

3. It is noted that this Court has highlighted the principles and law regarding contempt in the case titled "The State v. Dr. Firdous Ashiq Awan" [PLD 2020 Islamabad 109]. There is no cavil to the proposition that judges are not above the law and they are accountable. Bonafide criticism is an integral part of the accountability of judicial officers. The scope of contempt has been aptly described by Lord Atkin in the judgment of the House of Lords titled "Ambard v. Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago", [1936] 1 All ER 704] as follows:

          "But whether the authority and position of an individual Judge or the due administration of justice is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticizing in good faith in private or public the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way : the wrongheaded are permitted to err therein : provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful even though outspoken comments of ordinary men."

4. A judge who ceases to hold a judicial office upon retirement instantly severs his or her connection with the judicial organ and the Courts. A judge after retirement, therefore, attains the status of a private citizen. Such a person is no more a member of the 'Court' in the context of Article 204 of the Constitution nor under the Ordinance of 2003. However, a judicial officer, after his retirement, is not without a remedy in case the latter considers to have been maligned or his respect lowered in the eyes of the people. As a private citizen it remains open to a retired judicial officer to seek remedies available in a Court of law. However, the offence of contempt is not attracted in the case of a retired judge because after retirement the latter attains the status of a private citizen.

5. It is emphasized that even otherwise, the power of contempt is exercised sparingly. It is not a power meant to protect a judge as an individual nor the latter's dignity. Judges are entrusted with an onerous duty to serve the people through the fountain of justice and they are, therefore, not immune from public scrutiny nor criticism. An independent judge would not be influenced nor affected in any other manner because of public criticism. The authority of a judge is not dependent on the words of the Constitution but, rather, rests on public respect and the confidence of the people. The exercise of the power of contempt would be justified only if it is in the public interest i.e. to protect the rights of the litigants during pending proceedings or when it appears that an act or omission is calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice. Being magnanimous is an essential attribute of an independent and impartial judge because of the exalted position and the divine nature of judicial functions.

6. In the case in hand, the Petitioner seems to be hurt because a former Chief Justice of Pakistan has been publically criticized in his individual capacity. This definitely does not attract the offence of contempt.

7. For the above reasons, the petition is not maintainable and, therefore, accordingly dismissed.

(A.A.K.)          Petition dismissed