Source: https://iabhopal.wordpress.com/7a-historic-judgment/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 15:21:41+00:00

Document:
We write you further to our meeting of 7 April 2008.
We hereby confirm that the Republic of Pakistan having not suffered any damage withdraws in capacity of civil party not only against Mr. Asif Ali Zardari but also against Mr. Jens Schlegelmich and any other third party concerned by these proceedings. This withdrawal is effective for the above captioned proceedings as well as for any other proceedings possibly initiated in Switzerland (national or further to international judicial assistance). The Republic of Pakistan thus confirms entirely the withdrawal of its request of judicial assistance and its complements, object of the proceedings.
Request for mutual assistance made by the then government, which already stand withdrawn, was politically motivated. Contract was awarded to reshipment inspection companies in good faith in discharge of official functions by the State functionaries in accordance with rules.
The Republic of Pakistan further confirms having withdrawn itself as a damaged party and apologizes for the inconvenience caused to the Swiss authorities.
6. Despite the above clear declaration and categorical direction given by this Court on 16.12.2009, the Federal Government took no steps, whatsoever, towards implementation of the order. It was not until 29.3.2010 that a Bench of this Court, headed by the Hon‟ble Chief Justice, while taking suo motu notice of a news item regarding promotion of one Ahmed Riaz Sheikh an NRO beneficiary as head of the Economic Crime Wing of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) notice was taken of non-implementation of the various directions given in DR. MOBASHIR HASSAN‟s case. The Court, therefore, in strong terms directed compliance regarding steps for revival of the cases, including those outside the country.
9. The matter of implementation of the judgment, thereafter, was placed before another Bench of this Court on 29.4.2010. On the said date, the Deputy Attorney-General appeared on behalf of the Federation, who knew next to nothing of the case. After a few adjournments when no progress was in sight, the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs, was summoned by the Court for 13.05.2010. By then, Moulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, had taken over as Attorney-General for Pakistan, who informed the Court that the Secretary was indisposed at Lahore. Instead of turning up in Court the following day, he sent an application by fax from Lahore that he could not attend the Court as he had undergone a surgery and that he has resigned from his office. After Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, this was the second casualty of the implementation process.
11. With the concise statement filed on behalf of the Federal Government, reference was made to the observation given by the Prime Minister on the Summary presented to him by the Ministry of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs, and the same was reproduced in the order of this Court dated 10.06.2010 “The Prime Minister has observed that Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs has not given any specific views in the matter, as per Rules of Business, 1973. However, under the circumstances, the prime Minister has been pleased to direct that the Law Ministry may continue with the stance taken in this case.” Since the observation of the Prime Minister indicated that there was no specific view presented by the Ministry of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs, we, therefore, directed that the very Summary, on which the observations were made, be placed before the Court. Upon perusal of the Summary on 11.06.2010 the Court found that the proposal made to the Prime Minister was not for the implementation of Paragraph No. 178 of the judgment in DR. MOBASHIR HASSAN‟s case but rather for its non-implementation. The Court, therefore, ordered that the said Summary be totally ignored and a fresh one be submitted by the next date of hearing in terms of Paragraph No. 178. We were, however, disappointed when on the following day, we were informed by the Attorney-General for Pakistan that no summary at all was presented to the Prime Minister pursuant to our orders. Thereafter, these implementation proceedings were suspended by a larger Bench of this Court, hearing a petition filed by the Federation for review of the judgment in DR. MUBASHIR HASSAN‟s case.
14. The Attorney-General for Pakistan was put on notice “….to address arguments before this Court on the following date of hearing, after obtaining instructions from those concerned, as to why any of the mentioned options may not be exercised by the Court”. It further issued a general notice that “any person likely to be affected by exercise of the above mentioned options may appear before this Court on the next date of hearing and address this Court in the relevant regard so that he may not be able to complain in future that he had been condemned by this Court unheard.” The Attorney-General was further directed to inform all such persons mentioned in the order about its passage and of the next date of hearing. On the suggestion of the five-member Bench the Hon‟ble Chief Justice enlarged its strength to seven.
“That you, Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, have willfully flouted, disregarded and disobeyed the direction given by this Court in Para 178 in the case of “Dr. Mobashir Hassan v Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 265)” to revive the request by the Government of Pakistan for mutual legal assistance and status of civil party and the claims lodged to the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries, including Switzerland, which were unauthorizedly withdrawn by communication by Malik Muhammad Qayyum, former Attorney General for Pakistan to the concerned authorities, which direction you were legally bound to obey and thereby committed contempt of court within the meanings of Article 204(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 read with Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance (Ordinance V of 2003), punishable under Section 5 of the Ordinance and within the cognizance of this Court. We hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on the above said charge.
16. Moulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, leaned Attorney-General for Pakistan, was appointed to prosecute the Respondent. On behalf of the prosecution, the Attorney-General tendered in evidence documents comprising the judgments in DR. MOBASHIR HASSAN‟s case as well as in the review petition and all the orders passed from time to time relating to implementation of the judgment (Ex.P1 to P40). The Respondent in his defence produced only one witness, Ms. Nargis Sethi (D.W.1) who had remained the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister during the relevant period. She tendered in defence two Summaries, Ex.D/1 dated 21.5.2010 and Ex.D/2 dated 21.9.2010, along with documents appended with the Summaries submitted to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister opted not to testify on oath but put up his defence through a written statement unaccompanied by his affidavit.
19. The learned counsel maintained that the principle of „fair trial‟ must fulfill two conditions, firstly that „no one shall be condemned unheard‟ and secondly that „a person cannot be a judge in his own cause‟. Basing his argument on second condition, it was contended that this Bench having already formed an opinion, even if prima facie, about the culpability of the Respondent, it was no longer competent to proceed with the trial. He clarified that it was not a question of recusal by the members of the Bench but that of their disqualification to sit in trial and give judgment. Emphasizing the importance of incorporation of Article 10A in the Constitution, the learned counsel maintained that it had brought about a radical change in the scope of the law relating to determination of civil rights and obligations as well as criminal charge, ensuring that every person shall be entitled to „fair trial and due process‟. He pointed out that whereas many other fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution had been made subject to law, such limits have not been imposed on the fundamental right under Article 10A. Further drawing distinction between Article 4 and Article 10A of the Constitution, it was argued that the former provision entitles every person to be treated in accordance with the law as it exists, whereas the latter confers a Constitutional right upon the individuals to a „fair trial‟ regardless of, and notwithstanding, any provision in a sub-constitutional law. That trial by this Bench will be in accord with the Contempt of Court Ordinance and would thus fulfill the requirements of Article 4 but would be void in view of Article 10A for it offends the principle of „fair trial‟. That while admitting that the principle of the right to a „fair trial‟ was already well entrenched in our jurisprudence, the learned counsel argued that Article 10A had graduated the rule to a higher pedestal of a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. Conceding that under the ordinary law, there was an exception to the rule that „no man can be a judge in his own cause‟, allowing a Judge, who takes suo motu notice of contempt, to try a contemnor, he contended that the exception is no longer valid after the introduction of Article 10A.
20. On the question as to whether the provisions of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 allowing the trial of contempt by a Judge, who issues notice and frames charge, can be challenged in collateral proceedings without a frontal attack through separate proceedings, the learned counsel submitted that if an existing law is void being inconsistent with any of the fundamental rights, enshrined in the Constitution, it must be ignored, for it becomes unenforceable in view of Article 8(1) of the Constitution. To substantiate this argument, reliance was placed upon the cases of FAUJI FOUNDATION v. SHAMIMUR REHMAN ( PLD 1983 SC 457 ), SAIYYID ABUL A‟LA MAUDOODI AND OTHERS v. THE GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS ( PLD 1964 SC 673 ), MR. JUSTICE IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CHIEF JUSTICE OF PAKISTAN v. THE PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN ( PLD 2007 SC 578 ), CHIEF JUSTICE OF PAKISTAN, MR. JUSTICE IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY v. THE PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN ( PLD 2010 SC 61 ), SINDH HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN ( PLD 2009 SC 879 ), MIR MUHAMMAD IDRIS AND OTHERS v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN ( PLD 2011 SC 213 ), MUHAMMAD MUBEEN-US-SALAM v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN ( PLD 2006 SC 602 ).
21. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel that he has not referred to any particular provision of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003, being inconsistent with Article 10A of the Constitution, the learned counsel submitted that the longstanding practice of the Court allowing a Bench taking suo motu notice, to try the contemnor is „usage having the force of law‟ within the meaning of Article 8 of the Constitution. Reference was made to the definition of the word „usage‟, in Black‟s Law Dictionary, Wharton‟s Law Lexicon and Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Furthermore that Article 10A is to be read into the Ordinance to provide for an omission therein so as to bring it in conformity with the said fundamental right. That the stipulation in Section 11(3) of the Ordinance barring a Judge, who initiates proceedings for „judicial contempt‟ as defined in the Ordinance, to try the contemnor, shall also be read into Section 12 of the Ordinance relating to proceedings in case of a „civil contempt‟. To substantiate his arguments that this Court has in the past read into statutes omission made therein on the principle of casus omissus, the learned counsel cited the cases of AL-JEHAD TRUST v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN ( PLD 1996 SC 324 ), KHAN ASFANDYAR WALI v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN ( PLD 2001 607 ). He also referred to the interim order in the case of NADEEM AHMED v. THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN (Constitution Petition No. 11 of 2010 etc.), where this Court while referring certain proposals to the Parliament regarding the new procedure laid down under Article 175A in the Constitution for the appointment of Judges in the superior Courts, gave certain directions for appointments during the interregnum. In the same context reference was also made to MD. SONAFAR ALI v. THE STATE ( 1969 SCMR 460 ).
22. The learned counsel maintained that a fundamental right can neither be surrendered nor waived. For this proposition he placed reliance upon GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN v. SYED AKHLAQUE HUSSAIN (PLD 1965 SC 527), PAKISTAN MUSLIM LEGUE (N) v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN ( PLD 2007 SC 642 ) and OLGA TELLIS v. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ( AIR 1986 SC 180 ), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA v. M/S ROADMASTER INDS. OF INDIA ( AIR 2000 SC 1401 ). That in any case the Respondent objected to his trial by this Bench after the charge was framed when the trial commenced. Additionally it was argued that „due process‟ under Article 10A requires that a person can only be tried by a competent Court or Tribunal and this Bench being not competent to try the Respondent, the trial militates against the principle of „due process‟. Reference in this context was made to the cases of SHARAF FARIDI v. THE FEDERATION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN ( PLD 1989 Kar 404 ), GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN v. AZIZULLAH MEMON ( PLD 1993 SC 341 ) and AL-JEHAD TRUST v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN (supra).
23. On the question as to whether the trial of the Respondent by this Bench would militate against the principle of „fair trial‟, the learned counsel sought support from THE UNIVERSITY OF DACCA v. ZAKIR AHMED ( PLD 1965 SC 90), THE GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE AND OTHERS v. J. V. BHAT ETC. ( AIR 1975 SC 596 ), FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN v. MUHAMMAD AKRAM SHEIKH ( PLD 1989 SC 689 ), NAFEESA BANO v. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, WEST PAKISTAN ( PLD 1969 Lah 480 ), ANWAR v. THE CROWN ( PLD 1955 FC 185 ), GOVERNMENT OF NWFP v. DR. HUSSAIN AHMAD HAROON ( 2003 SCMR 104 ), MOHAPATRA & CO AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER ( 1985 SCR 91, 322 AT P. 332), AMARANTH CHOWDHURY v. BRAITHWAITE AND COMPMANY LTD. & ORS; ( 2002 (2) SCC 290).
24. For the purpose of disqualification of a Judge due to pre-trial observation made by him, reliance was placed upon two judgments by the Supreme Court of United States; MURCHISON‟S case 349 US 133 (1955) and DANIEL T. TAYLER III v. JOHN P. HAYES 418 US 488 (1974).
25. The principle of right to „fair trial‟ has been acknowledged and recognized by our Courts since long and is by now well entrenched in our jurisprudence. The right to a „fair trial‟ undoubtedly means a right to a proper hearing by an unbiased competent forum. The latter component of a „fair trial‟ is based on the age-old maxim “Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa” that “no man can be a judge in his own cause”. This principle has been further expounded to mean that a Judge must not hear a case in which he has personal interest, whether or not his decision is influenced by his interest, for “justice should not only be done but be seen to have been done”.
27. We agree with the learned counsel for the Respondent that the inclusion of the principle of right to a „fair trial‟ is now a Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right and has been raised to a higher pedestal; consequently a law, or custom or usage having the force of law, which is inconsistent with the right to a „fair trial‟ would be void by virtue of Article 8 of the Constitution. However, the question here is whether trial of the Respondent for contempt by us having issued a show cause notice and framed the charge, would violate the Respondent‟s right to a „fair trial‟ on the ground that we have already formed a prima facie opinion in the matter having initiated suo motu action against the Respondent. While issuing a show cause notice for contempt, a Judge only forms a tentative opinion, which is subject to the ultimate outcome at the conclusion of the trial. In this regard one may refer to the lucid pronouncement by the late Hon‟ble Mr. Justice Hamoodur Rahman, the then Chief Justice of Pakistan, while dealing with a Reference of misconduct against a Judge of the High Court in THE PRESIDENT v. SHUAKAT ALI ( PLD 1971 SC 585 ). The Respondent Judge had submitted a statement of his properties and assets to the Supreme Judicial Council under Article 3 of the Judges (Declaration of Assets) Order, 1969 and the Council, upon scrutiny of the statement, submitted a report to the President, who then made a Reference to the Council to proceed against the Judge for gross misconduct. One of the objections raised by the Judge was that the Council as constituted was disqualified from hearing the Reference, as it had earlier scrutinized the declaration of the assets of the Respondent and was, therefore, bound to be biased. The objection was rejected on two grounds; firstly, that there was no question or allegation of any bias on any individual member of the Supreme Judicial Council and the mere fact that the Council had scrutinized the declaration of assets was not sufficient to establish the likelihood of bias: “for, if it were so then no Judge who issues a rule in a motion or issues notice to show cause in any other proceedings or frames a charge in a trial can ever hear that matter or conduct that trial. The reason is that a preliminary inquiry intended to determine whether a prima facie case has been made out or not is a safeguard against the commencement of wholly unwarranted final proceedings against a person. To say that a charge should be framed against a person amounts to saying nothing more than that the person should be tried in respect of it. Anybody who knows the difference between the prima facie case and its final trial, would reject the objection as misconceived.” The second ground for rejecting the objection was that of necessity, in that if sustained, there would be no forum or tribunal to hear the Reference, as the Supreme Judicial Council had the exclusive jurisdiction to hear the Reference and all its members had at the preliminary stage scrutinized the statement of declaration of assets of the Judge. This ground of necessity was reiterated in the case of FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN v. MUHAMMAD AKRAM SHEIKH (ibid) where this Court, while reaffirming that the principle that “no one should be a judge in his own cause and justice should not only be done but should manifestly appear to have been done, were very salutary and fully entrenched judicial principles of high standard”, acknowledged that a Judge, when otherwise disqualified on account of the said principles, may still sit in the proceedings if in his absence the tribunal or the Court having exclusive jurisdiction would not be complete.
28. In the case of THE PRESIDENT v. SHUAKAT ALI (ibid) the Supreme Judicial Council had on its own motion, after scrutinizing the statement of the respondent Judge, made a report to the President. The pronouncement by the then Chief Justice Hamoodur Rahman provides a complete answer to the objection of the learned counsel for the defence. learned counsel had tried to draw a distinction between the exercise of contempt jurisdiction by the Court on its own motion and on the complaint of a party and it was contended that it is only in the former case that a Judge would stand disqualified to try a contemnor. This distinction we do not consider to be material. In both situations a Judge applies his mind before issuing notice to the respondent and later is to form a prima facie opinion after preliminary hearing whether or not to frame a charge and proceed with the trial. If it is held that a Judge holding a trial after having formed a prima facie or tentative opinion on merits of a case violates a litigant‟s fundamental right guaranteed under Article 10A, it would lead to striking down a number of procedural laws and well established practices, and may land our judicial system into confusion and chaos; a Judge, who frames a charge in every criminal case, will stand debarred from holding trial of the accused; a Judge hearing a bail matter and forming a tentative opinion of the prosecution case would then be disqualified to try the accused; a Judge expressing a prima facie opinion while deciding a prayer for grant of injunction would become incompetent to try the suit. There may be scores of other such situations. Be that as it may, in all such situations the cause is not personal to the Judge and he has no personal interest in the matter to disqualify him.
29. The exception recognized by the two judgments of this Court cited above on the ground of necessity to the rule that “no person shall be a judge in his own cause” is also attracted here. After the show cause notice was issued to the Respondent, a preliminary hearing was afforded to the Respondent in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003. Upon conclusion of the hearing we decided to proceed further and frame a charge against the Respondent. This order was challenged through an Intra-Court Appeal filed under section 19 of the Ordinance. It was heard by an eight-member Bench of this Court, headed by the Hon‟ble Chief Justice. The Appeal was dismissed and the order by this Bench, forming a prima facie opinion to frame the charge against the Respondent, was upheld. Like the present, the Bench hearing the Intra-Court Appeal had also applied its mind to the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case. If the argument of the learned counsel is accepted, all the members of the Bench hearing the Intra-Court Appeal would be equally disqualified, thus, leaving only one Hon‟ble Judge of this Court unaffected. No Bench could then be constituted to hear the contempt matter.
30. Out of the many judgments cited by the learned counsel, in only two, both by the United States Supreme Court, a Judge was held to be disqualified from trying a contemnor for his pre-trial conduct. In RE MURCHISON (supra), a Judge acting as one man Grand Jury, under the Michigan law, was investigating a crime and during the interrogation, formed an opinion that a policeman, Murchison, had perjured himself and that another person, by the name of White, had committed contempt for refusing to answer questions. Then acting in his judicial capacity he tried Murchison for contempt in open Court. The matter came up before the United States Supreme Court and while overturning the decision of the Michigan State Supreme Court held, by a majority of 7-3, that on the touchstone of „fair trial‟ by a fair tribunal the trial by the Judge was in violation of the principle that “no man can be a judge in his own cause”. This judgment turns on its own facts where the same person was the investigator, the complainant and the Judge and the information that he acquired during secret investigation was used by him while sitting in his capacity as a Judge. The information on which the Judge held the contemnor in contempt was acquired by him not in his judicial but administrative capacity while investigating a case. That is why the Supreme Court observed that the Judge as an investigator was a material witness and trying the case deprived the contemnor of cross-examining him on the information that he had acquired during investigation and had used in the judicial proceedings. The case has no parallel with the one before us. RE-MURCHISON (supra) does not in any way lay down the broad proposition that a Judge, who in that capacity forms a prima facie opinion in a contempt matter, stands disqualified to try the contemnor. It was in the peculiar circumstances of the case that the Supreme Court found that the petitioner was not given a fair trial by a fair tribunal. Even then three members of the Court dissented, holding that the contempt proceedings could be protected on the principle that a Judge can try a person, who commits contempt in the face of the Court.
31. In DANIEL T. TAYLER III v. JOHN P. HAYES (ibid) a trial Judge had warned the defence counsel during proceedings before the jury in a murder case nine times for courtroom conduct that he was in contempt. After the criminal case was over, the same Judge sentenced the counsel on nine counts of contempt and on each count, sentenced separately to run consecutively, totaling almost four and half years. The matter came up before the United States Supreme Court and it was held that on the facts of the case the contempt charge ought not to have been tried by the Judge; that although there was no personal attack on the trial Judge but the record showed that the trial Judge had become embroiled in a running controversy with the attorney and marked personal feelings were present on both sides during the trial, and the critical factor for the recusal being the character of the trial Judge‟s response to the attorney‟s misbehaviour during the trial, not the attorney‟s conduct alone. This case again does not in any way lays down that a Judge who forms a prima facie opinion in a case of contempt is debarred from trying the contemnor. The Supreme Court of United States considered the aversion the Judge had developed during the murder trial against the contemnor that disqualified him to hold his trial for contempt.
33. While incorporating Article 10A in the Constitution and making the right to a „fair trial‟ a fundamental right the legislature did not define or describe the requisites of a „fair trial‟. By not defining the term the legislature, perhaps intended to give it the same meaning as is broadly universally recognized and embedded in our own jurisprudence. Thus in order to determine whether the trial of the Respondent by this Bench violates the condition or the requisite of a fair trial, we have to fall back on the principles enunciated in this respect. Neither the learned counsel was able, nor did it come to our notice, any precedent or juristic opinion, that disqualifies a Judge, on the touchstone of „fair trial‟, to try a case of which he had made a preliminary tentative assessment. We may add that as regards the members of this Bench, the Respondent as well as the learned counsel, had expressed full confidence. Indeed none of us has the remotest personal interest in the matter. The contempt proceedings arose out of non-implementation of the judgment of this Court. The cause is not of any member of the Bench but of the Court and in a wider sense of enforcement of the law. The legislature has already, in the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003, provided a safeguard against trial by a Judge, who may have personal interest in the matter. Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Ordinance bars a Judge, who has initiated proceedings for „judicial contempt‟, that is scandalizing or personal criticism of the Judge, to try the contemnor. The Judge is required to send the matter to the Chief Justice, who may himself hear or refer the case to any other Judge for hearing.
34. From the foregoing discussion, it follows that a Judge, making a prima facie assessment of a contempt matter whether initiated suo motu or on the application of a party, does not stand disqualified on the touchstone of the requirements of a „fair trial‟, from hearing and deciding the matter. Thus our trial of the Respondent does not infringe upon the Respondent‟s fundamental right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 10A of the Constitution. The objection on this account is, therefore, not sustained.
37. The above position of the Respondent was, with vehemence, further urged by the learned counsel when concluding his arguments: that the Respondent is caught between implementing the judgment of this Court and maintaining the dignity and respect due to the office of the President of Pakistan. Thus, in very clear terms, he declared that the Respondent will not presently implement this Court‟s direction. Neither in the personal address by the Respondent before this Court nor in the written statement or in the submissions made on his behalf, slightest indication was given that the Respondent was ready to obey the Court‟s order as of now.
41. When confronted with the above situation, the learned counsel submitted that he does not seek review of either Paragraph No. 178 or the decision in the review judgment but only prays for postponement of the implementation till the tenure of the present incumbent of the office of the President comes to an end. This contention, if accepted, would delay the implementation until, at least, the fall of 2013, when the present tenure of the President expires, and would amount to modification of the direction given in the main as well as in the review judgment in DR. MOBASHIR HASSAN‟s case (ibid). Paragraph No. 178 concludes with direction to the Federal Government and other concerned authorities “to take immediate steps to seek revival of the said request, claims and the status”. Similarly, the short order of 25.11.2011 dismissing the review petition carries similar direction that “the concerned authorities are hereby directed to comply with the judgment dated 16.12.2009 in letter and sprit without any further delay.” Acceptance of the Respondent‟s plea to delay the implementation of the direction of this Court would tantamount to review of the clear orders passed in both the judgments that the implementation is to be carried out immediately and without delay. This Bench has no power to modify the judgments and delay implementation.
42. Additionally, we have noted that the criminal cases before the Swiss Courts were initiated by the Swiss Authorities and not by the Government of Pakistan, which later applied to be made civil party claiming that the amount, if any, found to be laundered, be returned to Pakistan, being its rightful claimant. This position was not disputed by the learned counsel. In Paragraph No. 178, the Court had merely directed that the communication earlier made by the former Attorney-General, Malik Muhammad Qayyum, for withdrawal of the claim be withdrawn so that the civil claim of the Federal Government is revived. The consequences of the withdrawal of Malik Muhammad Qayyum‟s communication can only be examined and adjudged by the investigators or courts in Switzerland, particularly, in view of the controversy raised on behalf of the Respondent that the cases were closed on merits, though we have noted that the documents speak otherwise.
Switzerland. This has been impliedly admitted in the written submissions filed on behalf of the Respondent. By Reference to Ex.D1/3 and D2/2, mentioned in the Summary prepared for the Prime Minister, it is stated that presently, Mr. Asif Ali Zardari is the only Pakistani surviving accused in the case, thereby admitting the indictment of non-Pakistani accused. However there is express reference to other accused in the letter of Malik Muhammad Qayyum, withdrawing the claim stating that the “Republic of Pakistan ……. withdraws in capacity of civil party not only against Mr. Asif Ali Zardari but also against Mr. Jens Schlegelmich and any other third party concerned by these proceedings”. As the claim of the Government of Pakistan was to retrieve the laundered money and commissions, whether paid to Pakistani, Swiss or other foreign nationals, the defence of immunity, even if available to the present President of Pakistan, cannot be pleaded for the foreign national accused in the case. To their extent too the Respondent is reluctant to revive the claim of the Government of Pakistan for no understandable reasons.
The learned counsel submitted that since implementation of the judgment falls within territorial jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court, that Court alone was empowered to implement this Court‟s orders or directions. We, however, understand that the said provision does not, in any manner, ousts this Court‟s power to enforce its decisions, particularly in view of its wide powers under Article 190 of the Constitution and under Article 204 to punish any person for disobeying the orders of the Court. Further, clause (1) of Article 187 of the Constitution only mandates that when the orders of the Supreme Court are to be enforced within a Province they shall be executed as if issued by the High Court of that Province; not that the execution is to be carried out by the High Court. We may add that this contention was not seriously urged and even otherwise we have found it misconceived.
47. The learned Attorney-General in his arguments quoted some Paragraphs from “Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to September 1990” to explain his role as a prosecutor that he need not support the prosecution and was entitled to make independent assessment of the case and assist the Court in accordance with law and his conscience. However, all his arguments were in support of the defence and none whatsoever to support the charge against the Respondent. The learned Attorney-General began by submitting that there was no law of contempt in force in the country, in that, the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 having lapsed by efflux of time under Article 89 stood repealed under Article 264 of the Constitution and that Article 270AA did not protect the said Ordinance. This question squarely came before this Court in Suo Motu Case No.1 of 2007 (PLD 2007 SC 688) where it was held that the Contempt of Court Ordinance (V of 2003) holds the field. This judgment had been affirmed by this Court in JUSTICE HASNAT AHMED KHAN v FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN ( PLD 2011 SC 680 ). It was pointed out to the learned Attorney-General that even if there was no sub-constitutional legislation regulating proceedings of Contempt of Court, this Court was possessed of constitutional power under Article 204 to punish contemnors, with no restrictions on the exercise of power including that regarding quantum of punishment that can be imposed on the contemnor. The learned Attorney-General went on to criticize parts of the judgment in “DR. MOBASHIR HASSAN‟s case (ibid). We, however, told him that the said judgment has been upheld by the Full Court in review and we cannot reopen the questions already decided. Concluding his arguments, he submitted, without elaborating, that the evidence on record does not establish the charge of contempt against the Respondent.
50. The learned counsel finally submitted that since the contempt proceedings are criminal in nature, entailing punishment, mens rea of the Respondent is to be established and it must be proved that his conduct was contumacious. That it would not be so if his decision is justifiable on subjective assessment of the information placed before him. That knowledge of the Respondent of the orders of this Court cannot be presumed and must be proved. For the purpose of standard and burden of proof in contempt matters and whether the conduct of the Respondent was contumacious, the learned counsel provided us with a long list of cases, some of which are MRITYUNJOY DAS AND ANOTHER v. SAYED HASIBUR RAHMAN AND OTHERS 2001 (3) SC Cases 739, CHHOTU RAM v. URVASHI GULATI AND ANOTHER 2001 (7) SC Cases 530, THE ALIGAR MUNICIPAL BOARD AND OTHERS v. EKKA TONGA MAZDOOR UNION 1970 (3) SC Cases 98, BAHAWAL v. THE STATE ( PLD 1962 SC 476 ), SMT. KIRAN BEDI AND JINDER SINGH v. THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY AND ANOTHER ( AIR 1989 SC 714 ), ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN v. MUHAMMAD SAEED ( PLD 1961 SC 192 ), ABDUL GHAFOOR v. MUHAMMAD SHAFI ( PLD 1985 SC 407 ), MIAN MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF v. THE STATE ( PLD 2009 SC 814 ).
(d) any other instructions the Hon‟ble Prime Minister may like to give in this regard.
“1. In connection with the question of revival of the proceedings which were pending before the Swiss Authorities it has to be respectfully brought to the kind notice of this Hon‟ble Court that the proceedings pending in Switzerland against, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto, Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, (now President of Pakistan) and Begum Nusrat Bhutto etc. already stand disposed of, not only because Malik Muhammad Qayyum the Ex-Attorney General for Pakistan had applied for the withdrawal of the application for mutual assistance and for becoming civil party but the same had been closed on merits by the Prosecutor General, Geneva vide his order dated 25.08.2008.
“10. As regards Asif Ali Zardari, the Public Prosecutor of Pakistan, after having initially involved Asif Ali Zardari, dropped all charges against him as well as against Jens Schlegelmilch, it being noted that the sentence pronounced in 1999 in Pakistan was revoked in 2001, that no new trial has been held in Pakistan since then that is since nearly 7 years.
Besides this, the Public Prosecutor believed today that the proceedings have been initiated against Benazir Bhutto and her husband for political reasons.
Furthermore, Pakistan explains withdrawal of proceedings highlighting that the procedure of allocation of contract to SGS /CONTECNA was not marred by irregularities, admitting hence that it believes that no act of corruption was committed.
Finally, the testimonies collected from the files and reported above show no conclusive evidence that would allow invalidating the final observation made on the basis of the file by the Public Prosecutor of Pakistan.
57. In other words the then Attorney-General for Pakistan had opined that notwithstanding the closure of the case on merits, the judgment of DR.MOBASHIR HASSAN‟s case (ibid) is still in the field. Though he did not put it plainly but what he meant was that it had to be enforced.
60. The final decision in the matter was to be taken by the Prime Minister, being the Chief Executive of the Federation. This position was not disputed even by the learned counsel for the Respondent. All the relevant documents, including the opinion of the then Attorney-General for Pakistan, with particular reference to DR. MOBASHIR HASSAN‟s case (ibid), along with the up to date interim orders of this Court, relating to implementation, were appended with the Summary. Out of the four proposals in the Summary, the last was for the Prime Minister to give any other instruction in that regard. This was not a Summary for the Prime Minister relating to a routine business of the Government. It involved implementation of the judgment of this Court in a well publicized case of immense public importance in which the Federal Government was not only represented but had filed also a review petition. Above all it also involved the serving President of the country, whose name specifically appeared in Annex-B (Ex.D 1/3) of the Summary. Since the Respondent had selected one of the four proposals in the Summary, we have reasons to believe that he had applied his mind to the case and consciously approved the proposal given in Paragraph No. 6 (a), that the Law Minister shall continue with the stance already taken in the case, which was to the effect that the case cannot be revived as the same has been closed on merits. The decision thus taken in the first Summary by the Respondent was not to implement this Court‟s direction.
63. The implementation proceedings can be conveniently divided into two stages. The first is up to the date when the Full Court suspended the implementation proceedings, and the second, after the dismissal of the Review Petition. The defence of the Respondent on merits in the main is that in the pre-review period the Court had not given direction specifically to the Respondent and orders passed in the post-review stage the only one communicated to him was of 16.01.2012, calling upon the Respondent to show cause. These pleas would have had some relevance if the Respondent upon appearance in the Court in response to the show cause notice had expressed his willingness and readiness to comply with the Court‟s directions. Instead he took a stand that he would not implement the directions as he believed that the same were not implementable. This stand of the Respondent continued right up to the conclusion of the trial. Many a time, during the hearing of these proceedings, the learned counsel for the Respondent was asked whether the Respondent would even now agree to write to the Swiss Authorities. The only response we received was that the letter cannot be written so long as Mr. Asif Ali Zardari remains the President of Pakistan. The Respondent‟s stand amounts to saying that the order of this Court is non-implementable, as he believes that the same is not in accord with the Constitution of Pakistan and the International law. This argument, if accepted, would set a dangerous precedent and anyone would then successfully flout the orders of the Courts by pleading that according to his interpretation they are not in accord with the law. A judgment debtor would then be allowed to plead before the executing Court that the decree against him was inconsistent with the established law. No finality would then be attached to the judgments and orders of the Courts, even those by the apex Court of the Country. One may refer to the oft quoted aphorism of Robert Houghwout Jackson, J. about finality of the judgments of the Supreme Court of United States, “…… there is no doubt that if there were a super Supreme Court, a substantial proportion of our reversals of the State Courts would be reversed. We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible because we are final.” The executive authority may question a Court‟s decision through the judicial process provided for in the Constitution and the law but is not entitled to flout it because it believes it to be inconsistent with the law or the Constitution. Interpretation of the law is the exclusive domain of the judiciary.
the advice that was tendered to him. The Respondent had no option but to order the implementation of this Court‟s direction, particularly after the review of the Federal Government was dismissed.
65. After the review petition filed by the Federal Government was dismissed on 25.11.2011 with a clear direction that the judgment in DR. MOBASHIR HASSAN‟s case (ibid) shall be implemented without any further delay, the matter of implementation proceedings were revived. On 10.1.2012 (Ex.P.22) a detailed order was passed directly putting the Respondent on notice to implement the orders lest the proceedings for contempt of Court be initiated. The learned Attorney-General on the following date on 16.01.2012 (Ex.P.23) informed the Court that the said order was duly communicated to the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of Pakistan but that he had not received any instruction. The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the value of such statement by the Attorney-General is only evidence that statement was made but not of its contents unless the Attorney-General testifies on oath to the correctness of the statement. We are afraid we cannot accept this argument as the Attorney-General for Pakistan is the principal law officer of the Federation and the statements made by him before the Court are official communications and shall, thus, be presumed to be correct, unless validly contradicted. Although the Respondent, in Paragraph No. 74(i) and (v) of his written statement, has stated that he was not made aware of the orders of the Court after September 23, 2010, until January 2012, more specifically 16.01.2012, there is, however, no specific denial with regard to the Attorney-General‟s statement made before the Court on 16.01.2012. We may mention that when the learned counsel for the Respondent during submissions stated that the Respondent was not aware of the orders of the Court, the then Attorney-General, Moulvi Anwar-ul-Haq intervened that he had conveyed all the relevant orders to the Prime Minister. Perhaps, that may have been the reason that before arguments could be addressed by the Attorney-General, he was replaced. We have no doubt that the Respondent was made aware of the order of 16.01.2012. Be that as it may, on his appearance in response to the show cause notice, he still expressed his unwillingness to obey the Court‟s orders.
66. Coming to the evidence in support of the charge, the Attorney-General for Pakistan, acting as prosecutor, tendered in evidence attested copies of the two judgments in DR. MOBASHIR HASSAN‟s case (ibid) and the orders of this Court for the implementation of Paragraph No. 178 of the original judgment. The learned counsel for the Respondent did not raise any objection when these documents were tendered in evidence under Article 88 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The only defence witness, Ms. Nargis Sethi, the then Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, mainly referred to the schedule of the Prime Minister, with a view to persuade the Court that the Respondent‟s busy schedule does not allow him to examine in detail the summaries placed before him. We have already observed that this was not a routine Summary and that as a matter of fact, the Prime Minister did apply his mind as, not once but twice, he consciously decided against the implementation. The witness further stated that when the Summary is returned, the Minister concerned is obliged to inform the Prime Minister of further development. We have, however, already held that the option exercised by the Prime Minister in the first Summary amounted to non-implementation of the judgment; the observation of the Prime Minister that the Law Ministry had not given any definite opinion is inconsistent with his direction to the Ministry to continue with its stand, which amounts to saying that the judgment being not implementable shall not be implemented.
“For reasons to be recorded later, the accused Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani, Prime Minister of Pakistan/Chief Executive of the Federation, is found guilty of and convicted for contempt of court under Article 204(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance (Ordinance V of 2003) for willful flouting, disregard and disobedience of this Court‟s direction contained in paragraph No. 178 of the judgment delivered in the case of Dr. Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 265) after our satisfaction that the contempt committed by him is substantially detrimental to the administration of justice and tends to bring this Court and the judiciary of this country into ridicule.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.