SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
 
Present : 
 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed 
 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
 
Mr. Justice Faisal Arab 
 
 
Criminal Original Petition No.09 of 2018 
{Suo Moto Contempt Proceedings initiated against Mr. Talal 
Chaudhry, State Minster on account of derogatory and 
contemptuous speeches/statements at public gathering in respect 
of this Hon’ble Court telecasted by different T.V. Channels} 
 
 
For the alleged 
Contemnor 
: 
Mr. Kamran Murtaza, Sr. ASC  
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For the State 
: 
 
Ch. Aamir Rehman, Additional A.G. assisted by 
Barrister Asad Rahim Khan 
 
Date of hearing 
: 
11.07.2018. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
Gulzar Ahmed, J.:- On 01.02.2018, the Registrar of this Court had 
put up a note to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan, the contents of the note are 
as follows:- 
“PUC are press clippings dated 13.09.2017, 
14.01.2018, 20.01.2018 whereby statements were 
reported and transcripts of speeches at public 
gathering dated 24.01.2018 & 27.01.2018 telecast by 
different TV channels pertaining to Mr. Talal 
Chaudhry, State Minster. The statements are 
contemptuous and derogatory in respect of this 
Hon’ble Court with special reference to the decision 
of this Court dated 28.07.2017 passed in Constitution 
Petition 29/2016 etc. The words used constitute 
interference with and obstruction of the process of 
the Court as well as aimed at belittling the stature of 
the Apex Court. It is prima facie Contempt of Court 
in terms of Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan read with Section 3 of the 
Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. Note is 
submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan for 
appropriate orders please.” 
 
 
Crl.Org.P.No.09 of 2018 
2
 
On the same day, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan passed the 
following order on this note: 
“Besides the above referred statements and material 
on account of many other statements, speeches of the 
above named, which should be collected by the 
Registrar of this Court in due course. Suo Moto 
Proceeding in Contempt of the Court on account of 
the noted Article of the Constitution and Section 3 of 
the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 are initiated 
against Mr. Talal Ch and the matter be listed for 
hearing on 6th Feb 2018 before a Bench headed by 
my brother Ejaz Afzal Khan. After notice to the Mr. 
Talal ch.” 
  
 
2. 
 
Subsequently, notice dated 01.02.2018, under Article 204 of the 
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Section 3 of 
Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003  was issued to the alleged contemnor namely 
Talal Chaudhry for his appearance on 06.02.2018. He appeared in Court on 
06.02.2018, when the Court examined the transcript of speeches made by the 
alleged contemnor on 24.01.2018 and 27.01.2018 and prima facie found the case 
to be the one of initiation of criminal proceedings under Article 204 of the 
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 read with section 5 of the 
Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 and it was ordered that show cause notice be 
issued to the alleged contemnor for proceedings as such and case was posted on 
13.02.2018. Pursuant to this order, show cause notice dated 10.02.2018 was 
issued to the alleged contemnor. On 13.02.2018, the alleged contemnor himself 
appeared before the Court and requested for time to engage a counsel. The matter 
was adjourned to 19.02.2018. On 19.02.2018, Mr. Kamran Murtaza, Sr. ASC 
appeared for alleged contemnor and requested for time to furnish reply to show 
cause notice. The case was adjourned to 26.02.2018. On 22.02.2018, the alleged 
contemnor filed his preliminary reply, which was registered as Crl. M.A.No.265 
of 2018. On 26.02.2018 the alleged contemnor himself appeared before the Court 
when the Court passed the order that the transcript containing contemptuous 
remarks has already been annexed with the paper book and allowed the alleged 
Crl.Org.P.No.09 of 2018 
3
contemnor and his Sr. ASC to go through the same and matter was adjourned to 
06.03.2018. On 06.03.2018, learned Sr. ASC for the alleged contemnor stated that 
he has gone through the transcript but has not been provided copy of Compact 
Disc (CD). Learned Additional Attorney General for Pakistan was directed to 
provide a copy of requisite CD to the learned Sr. ASC for alleged contemnor and 
matter was adjourned to 08.03.2018. On 08.03.2018, the Court examined the 
reply submitted by the alleged contemnor and ordered further proceedings under 
the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 read with Article 204 of the Constitution 
of Pakistan (herein after the Constitution) and listed the case for framing of 
charge on 14.03.2018. On request of counsel for alleged contemnor, the case was 
adjourned from 14th March 2018 to 15th March, 2018. On 15th March, 2018 charge 
was framed, which is as follows:- 
 
C H A R G E 
That you Mr. Talal Chaudhry made speeches on 
24.01.2018 and 27.01.2018 wherein you by your 
words, gestures and tone not only defamed and 
scandalized the Court and its Judges but also 
tended to bring the Court and its Judges into hatred, 
ridicule and contempt, and thereby committed 
Contempt of Court within the meaning of Article 
204(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan read with Section 3 of the Contempt of 
Court Ordinance, 2003 (Ordinance V of 2003) 
punishable under Section 5 of the Ordinance of 
2003 within the cognizance of this Court. We hereby 
direct that you be tried by this Court on the above 
said charge.   
 
3. 
 
The alleged contemnor pleaded not guilty to the charge and both 
the Deputy Attorney General so also alleged contemnor were directed to submit 
list of witnesses within seven days and case was posted for 27.03.2018 for 
evidence of prosecution.  
4. 
 
On 06.04.2018 prosecution examined PW-Haji Adam son of Haji 
Sahib Khan, Director General (Monitoring) Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory 
Authority (PEMRA). In his examination-in-chief, this prosecution witness 
produced a letter, transcript and CD containing video clips as Exhs: P-1, P-2 and 
Crl.Org.P.No.09 of 2018 
4
P-3. On the same date this prosecution witness was cross-examined by Mr. 
Kamran Murtaza, learned Sr. ASC for alleged contemnor and thereafter case was 
posted for recording the statement of alleged contemnor. On 21.05.2018 statement 
under section 342 Cr.P.C. of the alleged contemnor was recorded and he was also 
allowed time of one day to file list of defence witnesses. In his statement under 
section 342 Cr.P.C. the alleged contemnor denied to record his statement under 
section 340(2) Cr.P.C. The alleged contemnor on 24.05.2018 produced two 
defence witnesses. DW-I Asrar Ahmed Khan recorded his examination-in-chief 
and he was cross-examined by the learned Additional Attorney General for 
Pakistan. DW-2 Musaddiq Malik recorded his examination-in-chief and he was 
cross-examined by the learned Additional Attorney General for Pakistan. 
Muhammad Tahir, General Manager PEMRA was produced as DW-3 and he 
recorded his examination-in-chief on 21.06.2018. He was cross-examined by 
learned Additional Attorney General for Pakistan. On 28.06.2018 evidence of 
DW-4 Atta Muhammad and DW-5 Imtiaz Khan were recorded. Both these 
witnesses were cross-examined by learned Additional Attorney General for 
Pakistan.  
5. 
 
After completion of evidence of the parties, the matter was posted 
for hearing of final arguments, which were heard on 11.07.2018 and judgment 
was reserved. 
6. 
 
We have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties 
and have also gone through the record of the case.  
7. 
 
Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned Sr. ASC for the alleged contemnor 
has commenced the arguments in the first instance. In his very first submission, 
he has contended that the very proceeding of contempt was not initiated in terms 
of Article 204 of the Constitution. Elaborating on this argument, learned ASC has 
urged that Article 204 of the Constitution confers power on Supreme Court and 
High Court to punish for contempt of Court and that such power being vested in 
Court, the Hon’ble Chief Justice who has passed order dated 01.2.2018 on the 
Crl.Org.P.No.09 of 2018 
5
note of the Registrar for initiating the contempt proceeding was not an order of 
Court which has to be of a bench of the Court and not of the Hon’ble Chief 
Justice alone. He also referred to Article 184(3) of the Constitution to show that 
even the suo moto jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the Hon’ble Chief Justice 
for that such power is also conferred on a bench of the Court. To support his 
above submission, learned Sr. ASC for the alleged contemnor has referred to the 
order passed by Justice Qazi Faez Essa, an Hon’ble Judge of this Court while 
sitting at Peshawar.  
8. 
 
On the other hand, learned Additional Attorney General has 
opposed this submission and contended that not only Article 204 of the 
Constitution confers power on the Hon’ble Chief Justice to initiate contempt 
proceeding but such power is also available and specifically provided for in the 
contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 and so also under the Supreme Court Rules, 
1980. So far this submission of the learned counsel for the parties is concerned, 
the same may not detain us for long. In this regard reference is made to the 
provision of Section 7 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, where it 
provides for taking of Suo Motu action by the Court in the matter of Criminal 
Contempt. Similarly in case of personalize criticism a Judge has been empowered 
to take notice of the same and in the judicial contempt a Judge of a Court is 
competent to initiate proceeding relating to him and refer it to the Chief Justice 
who may hear the same personally or refer it to some other Judge. Similarly 
proceeding of civil contempt could also be initiated Suo Motu. Part-V Order 
XXVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 deals with proceeding in relation to 
contempt of Court, Rule 7 of which provides that where the Contempt consists of 
words or acts of visible signs which tend to prejudice a party to a proceeding 
before the Court or tend to scandalize the Court or any Judge or otherwise tend to 
bring the Court or a Judge in relation to his office into hatred, ridicule or 
contempt, the matter shall, in the first instance, be placed before the Chief Justice 
Crl.Org.P.No.09 of 2018 
6
and such Judges as the Chief Justice may nominate to consider the expediency or 
propriety of taking of action in the matter.   
9. 
 
In the Suo Motu Case No.1 of 2007 (Manhandling of Hon’ble Mr. 
Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry by Police) reported in PLD 2007 Supreme 
Court 688, the contempt proceedings were initiated on the basis of a note put up 
before the Acting Chief Justice. Further in the case of Azam Jan Zarkoon vs. The 
State (2000 P.Cr.L.J 1621), a judgment of the Division Bench of the Balochistan 
High Court, wherein also cognizance of commission of contempt was initially 
taken by the Chief Justice and it was held that after taking of such cognizance, the 
Chief Justice was required to place the matter before a Bench of the Court in 
terms of Section 8(5) of Contempt of Court Act, 1976. Similarly the Contempt 
proceedings before this Court were initiated on taking of Suo Motu action by this 
Court in the case of Mr. Daniyal Aziz (Criminal Original Petition No.10/2018) 
decided by judgment dated 28.06.2018 and further Contempt proceedings against 
Senator Nihal Hashmi (2018 SCMR 556) was also initiated on the note of the 
Registrar of this Court made to the Hon’ble Chief Justice. There are scores of 
other precedents on this very aspect of the matter and it seems unnecessary for us 
to delve upon them as it will unnecessary prolong the judgment. Relying upon the 
order of Hon’ble Judge passed at Peshawar neither is relevant nor appropriate. It 
did not deal with the case of Contempt so on this very score alone it is 
distinguishable. 
10. 
 
Learned Sr.ASC for the alleged contemnor next contended that the 
speeches which are subject matter of the present contempt proceedings against the 
alleged contemnor are protected under the right of freedom of speech as conferred 
by the Article 19 of the Constitution and thus alleged contemnor cannot be made 
liable on such speeches for contempt of this Court. To understand this very 
submission of the learned Sr.ASC, it is essential here to narrate the origin of this 
case. The Registrar in his note has made reference to the public speeches made by 
the alleged contemnor on 24.01.2018 and 27.01.2018, which became the subject 
Crl.Org.P.No.09 of 2018 
7
matter of publication of press and telecasted by different TV channels upon which 
the Hon’ble Chief Justice has taken cognizance and initiated contempt 
proceedings. The speech of the alleged contemnor dated 24.01.2018 appeared on 
Express TV is as follows:-       
 
 
Further on 27.01.2018, the alleged contemnor made a speech at Jaranwala, 
which was telecasted by New TV channel, the alleged contemnor stated as 
follows: -  
 
11. 
 
These two statements of the alleged contemnor in terms of charge 
framed against him, are the subject matter of the present contempt proceedings 
against him. Article 19 of the Constitution provides as follows:  
 
 
“Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech 
and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, 
subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in 
the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security 
or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly 
relations with foreign States, public order, decency or 
morality, or in relation to contempt of Court,[commission 
of] or incitement to an offence.”  
 
 
12. 
 
It is undeniable that every citizen has been conferred right of 
freedom of speech and expression and such right has been conferred in Article 19 
of the Constitution, which is one of the fundamental right provided in Para-II of 
Crl.Org.P.No.09 of 2018 
8
the Constitution. However, such freedom of speech and expression given to every 
citizen has been made subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the 
interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or 
any part thereof, friendly relations with the foreign States, public order, decency 
or morality, or in relation to contempt of Court, [commission of] or incitement of 
an offence. Thus it is apparent that contempt of Court is one of the law to which 
the fundamental right of every citizen to freedom of speech and expression has 
been subjected to. In exercising the fundamental right of freedom of speech and 
freedom of expression, if a citizen impinges upon and transgresses the reasonable 
restrictions of law of contempt of Court, he will make himself culpable and liable 
to be proceeded against under the contempt of Court Law. The rationale of 
imposition of conditions on freedom of speech and expression as underlined by 
the Constitution itself is that the citizens while exercising such right have to 
maintain decency and decorum and not in a manner, which will infringe upon the 
rights of other citizens or transgress the mandate of law in relation to the working 
of State Institutions. Further the rationale of making of law of contempt by the 
Constitution itself and by promulgation of the Ordinance is as a matter of public 
policy to secure the law of the land which it is the duty of the Court to uphold and 
to secure the judges and the Court from being scandalized into hatred or ridicule. 
The contempt law thus is meant basically to maintain the efficacy of the Courts of 
justice and to secure public confidence in the administration of justice. 
13. 
 
The next submission of the learned Sr.ASC for the alleged 
contemnor was that the show cause notice and the charge both are defective and 
no punishment on such defective show cause notice and charge can be imposed 
upon the alleged contemnor. To substantiate this submission, the learned Sr.ASC 
for the alleged contemnor has urged that in the show cause notice the contents of 
the speeches dated 24.01.2018 and 27.01.2018 were not reproduced and similarly 
also in the charge, the contents of the two speeches made the subject matter 
against the alleged contemnor were not reproduced and thus the alleged 
Crl.Org.P.No.09 of 2018 
9
contemnor was not aware of what actually was the allegation against him in the 
show cause notice as well as in the charge. Learned Additional Attorney General 
in this respect referred to the order of this Court dated 06.03.2018 in which it is 
specifically noted that learned Sr.ASC for the alleged contemnor stated at the bar 
that he has gone through the transcripts but complained of not providing of 
Compact Disc (CD) which too were provided to him before framing of the charge 
and thus the alleged contemnor feigned denial of knowledge of contents of his 
speeches is not established from the record. Although in the show cause notice 
reference to the transcripts of two speeches of the alleged contemnor dated 
24.01.2018 and 27.01.2018 was made but it was not shown by the learned Sr.ASC 
for the alleged contemnor that the non-reproduction of the contents of said two 
speeches in anyway has prejudiced the alleged contemnor from defending the 
contempt proceedings in that the alleged contemnor has filed reply to the show 
cause notice in which he also pleaded that he is not aware of the contents or 
material on the basis of which contempt proceeding has been initiated against 
him, which he has requested to be supplied to him for furnishing of further reply. 
As noted in the order of this Court dated 06.03.2018 not only the contents of the 
two speeches were read by the learned Sr.ASC for the alleged contemnor but he 
was also supplied Compact Disc (CD) of such transcripts of speeches. The charge 
against the alleged contemnor was framed on 15.03.2018, which has already been 
reproduced above. No law was cited by the learned Sr.ASC for the alleged 
contemnor to show that either the show cause notice in the manner it was issued 
to the alleged contemnor or the charge framed against him was defective or at all 
has prejudiced the alleged contemnor in defending this contempt proceeding 
against him. Further we note that on 26.02.2018, this Court has passed the order 
in the presence of the alleged contemnor which is in the following terms:- 
 
“The transcript containing contemptuous remarks has 
already been annexed with the paper-book. Let the alleged 
contemnor and his counsel go through the same. Since 
learned ASC for the alleged contemnor is on General 
Crl.Org.P.No.09 of 2018 
10
Adjournment till 5th March, 2018, let this case be 
adjourned for 6th March, 2018”     
 
 
Thus the alleged contemnor also was aware of the fact that the transcripts 
containing contemptuous remarks has already been annexed with the paper-book 
and formed part of the record of the contempt proceeding against him.  
14. 
 
Further the submission of the learned Sr.ASC for the alleged 
contemnor is that in the list of witnesses filed by the prosecution no gist of 
evidence was mentioned. For considering this submission of the learned Sr.ASC, 
we have gone through the list of witnesses filed on behalf of the prosecution by 
way of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.454 of 2018 and find that it 
mentioned the name of Haji Adam, Director General (Monitoring), Pakistan 
Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), PEMRA Headquarter, 
Islamabad. Though such a submission was made by the learned Sr.ASC for the 
alleged contemnor that in the list of witnesses’ gist of evidence is not mentioned 
but he failed to point out any provision of law which require the prosecution side 
to file list of witnesses along gist of evidence. The procedure provided in Section 
17 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, inter alia is that after giving the 
alleged contemnor an opportunity of a preliminary hearing, the Court is prima 
facie satisfied that the interest of justice so requires, it shall fix a date for framing 
a charge in open Court and proceed to decide the matter either on that date, or on 
a subsequent date or dates, on the basis of affidavits, or after recording of 
evidence. As such the Ordinance itself does not lay down the procedure of filing 
of list of witnesses by the prosecution or of mentioning of gist of evidence in it 
rather the law provides that on framing of charge the Court can proceed either to 
take affidavit or to record evidence as the case may be. Even if the gist of 
evidence was not mentioned in the list of witnesses filed by the prosecution, the 
learned Sr.ASC for the alleged contemnor was unable to demonstrate before us 
that any prejudice in this regard was at all caused to the alleged contemnor in 
defending himself in the contempt proceeding.  
Crl.Org.P.No.09 of 2018 
11
15. 
 
Coming to the merit of the case, we note that to prove the 
allegation against the alleged contemnor the prosecution produced PW-Haji Adam 
as its witness who produced transcript of speeches of the alleged contemnor and 
Compact Disc (CD) as Exh.P-2 and P-3. In his examination in chief he has stated 
that he has compared the transcripts with the Video Clips and it was his duty and 
responsibility to monitor all the licencee channels round the clock. He was cross-
examined by the learned Sr.ASC for the alleged contemnor. The only main 
feature of this cross-examination was that the transcript of speeches are not 
authenticated one in that possibility of editing and doubing, in the video clips, 
cannot be ruled out. Both these two aspects of the cross-examination of the 
learned Sr.ASC of the alleged contemnor were sufficiently dealt with and 
answered by this witness and clarified that the transcript and the Compact Disc 
(CD) were obtained from the programme aired by the TV channels and that so for 
the question of editing and doubing is concerned, the witness replied that he has 
provided what was recorded and heard live. The statement under Section 342 
Cr.P.C. of the alleged contemnor was recorded which is as follows: - 
 
“Statement under Section of 342 Cr.P.C (without oath) of 
respondent/alleged contemnor (Talal Chaudhry S/o Muhammad 
Ashraf Chaudhry), aged about 43 years, occupation Agricultural 
and Business, R/o 65-GB, Tehsil Jaranwala, District Faisalabad. 
 
Q.No.1 
Have you heard and understood the evidence recorded in 
your presence? 
 
Ans. 
Yes. 
 
 
Q.No.2 
Is it fact that you made speeches at public gathering on 
24.1.2018 and 27.1.2018, telecasted by different TV 
channels and the DVDs and their transcripts are Exbs. as 
P3 and P2, respectively? 
 
Ans. 
It is incorrect. On 24.1.2018 it was not a speech but a 
press talk at Faisalabad. Such press talk was edited, 
manipulated and many of the sentences from the press talk 
have been omitted.  
2. 
The speech Telecasted on TV channels on 
27.1.2018 is also incorrect. Such telecast speech was also 
a manipulated one, in that various portion from it was also 
omitted. The speech was telecasted without reference to 
the context. In the speech of 27.01.2018, I did not quote 
anything about Judges or Court.     
Crl.Org.P.No.09 of 2018 
12
   
Q.No.3 
It is in the evidence that PW Haji Adam, DG Monitoring 
(PEMRA) produced video clips P3 of your above 
mentioned speeches alongwith its transcripts P2 after 
verifying and comparing the transcripts with the video 
clips. What do you say about it?   
 
Ans. 
Exh.P3 & P2, which are DVDs do not contain full 
speeches which were made during press gathering on 
24.01.2018. It is correct that the videos Exh.P3 are mine 
but these are edited and manipulated. The video clips so 
also its transcription Exh.P2 do not match with each other. 
   
Q.No.4 
It is in the evidence that the transcripts of DVD containing 
your speech dated 24.01.2018 on express TV was as 
follows :- 
 
 
and your speech dated 27.1.2018 at Jaranwala was as 
follows : -  
 
 
 
what do you say about it? 
 
Ans. 
Yes. I made these statements in my speech as well as in 
my press talk, but they have been edited and reference to 
context was not made in fact different parts of my 
statements have been tagged together.  
 
Q.No.5 
It is in the evidence that words used in your speeches and 
your tone not only defame and scandalize the Court and 
its Judges but also tend to bring hatred in the minds of 
general public against Supreme Court of Pakistan and its 
Judges and your above said words, gesture and tone while 
making speeches mentioned above, aired on different 
channels, constitute contempt of this Court.  
 
Ans 
This is incorrect. I have all the respect to this Hon’ble 
Court.  
 
Q.No.6 
Will you make statement on oath under Section 340(2) 
Cr.P.C. in disproving the charge against you? 
 
Ans 
 
--- 
No. 
--- 
 
Q.No.7 
Will you produce evidence in your defence? 
 
Crl.Org.P.No.09 of 2018 
13
Ans. 
 
--- 
Yes. 
--- 
 
Q.No.8 
Do you want to say anything else? 
 
Ans. 
I am a young man and a law graduate. I am also a political 
worker and also belong to a democratic party.  I am an 
elected representative and belong to a middle class family. 
I have not committed any contempt of court and have 
used the word PCO in my speech as a part of history in 
Pakistan upon which judgments have been passed by this 
Court. The reference of PCO was mainly symbolic and it 
has been mentioned in previous speeches while the lawyer 
movement was going on and such aspect of the matter 
was also dealt with in the COD (Charter of Democracy). I 
have already requested for cancellation of notice on the 
ground that my intention should not be doubted, which is 
not of contempt as I do respect the Court. I have made 
thousands of speeches but uptill now no institution or 
opponent has issued me legal notice. I am not a habitual 
offender. I am innocent.   
 
 
R.O. & A.C” 
 
  
16. 
 
In question No.4 the alleged contemnor was confronted with the 
transcripts of his two speeches dated 24.01.2018 and 27.01.2018 and his answer 
was yes I made these statements in my speeches as well as in my press talks but 
stated that they have been edited and reference to context was not made and that 
different parts of the statements have been tagged together. 
17. 
 
The alleged contemnor produced DW-1 Asrar Ahmed Khan, who 
admitted that he was present in the public meeting at Jaranwala on 27.01.2018. In 
his cross-examination he stated as follows: - 
 
 
 
“ It is correct that I have been read over the transcripts of the speech 
made by the alleged contemnor in the public meeting on 27.01.2018 
at Jaranwala and it is correct that the words uttered and used by the 
alleged contemnor in the public meeting were 
 
 
” 
 
 
Crl.Org.P.No.09 of 2018 
14
18. 
 
DW-2 Musaddaq Malik, who was also present in the public 
meeting at Jaranwala on 27.01.2018, in his cross-examination he stated as 
follows: - 
 
“I have been shown the transcripts of speech of the alleged 
contemnor which reads as follows: -  
 
 
 
 
It is correct to suggest that such words were used by the alleged 
contemnor but were interjected by other things said by him and this was 
not his continuous speech.” 
 
19. 
 
The alleged contemnor also produced DW-3 Muhammad Tahir, 
General Manager, PEMRA. In his examination in chief he referred to his letter 
dated 22.05.2018 filed at page No.3 of Criminal Miscellaneous Application 
868/2018 and admitted that this letter was issued by him on the direction of 
Executive Member, PEMRA. The alleged contemnor did not got this letter 
produced as exhibit.  
20. 
 
Anyhow, we have gone through this letter and it simply mentions 
that no show cause notice was issued to any Satellite channel regarding airing of 
speeches made by the alleged contemnor on 24.01.2018 and 27.01.2018. In our 
view non-issuing of show cause notice by PEMRA to the Satellite TV channels 
could not furnish ground of defence to the alleged contemnor for that to issue 
show cause notice to the Satellite channels was a matter between PEMRA and 
Satellite TV channels with which the Court is not much concerned. Though as a 
matter of law or policy PEMRA was required to issue show cause notice to the 
Satellite TV channels by not doing so the same does not has any reflection or 
connection with the contempt proceeding initiated by the Court against the alleged 
Crl.Org.P.No.09 of 2018 
15
contemnor. The remaining two witnesses produced by the alleged contemnor 
apparently were stock witnesses and not much turns on their evidence.  
21. 
 
We have closely looked and examined the two transcripts of 
speeches made by the alleged contemnor and apparently find that such utterances 
of the alleged contemnor, amounted to abuse of  Court and to scandalize the Court 
or tends to bring the Court or a Judge of the Court into hatred, ridicule or 
contempt within the meaning of Article 204 of the Constitution and further such 
contempt in terms of Section 18 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 was 
substantially detrimental to the administration of justice in that it scandalized the 
Court and tend to bring the Court or a Judge of the Court into a hatred or ridicule. 
Learned Sr.ASC for the alleged contemnor during the course of his arguments has 
contended that even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the two speeches of 
the alleged contemnor do make out a case of contempt of Court against him, the 
Court will not act in vengeance rather the Court will exercise judicial restraint. In 
this regard learned Sr.ASC for the alleged contemnor has relied upon the cases of 
Habibul Wahhab Elkheiri vs. Khan Abdul Wali Khan and 4 others (PLD 1978 
Supreme Court 85), Re-Contempt of Court Proceedings against General (Retd) 
Mirza Aslam Baig (PLD 1993 Supreme Court 310), Riaz Hanif Rahi vs. Saeed-uz-
Zaman Siddiqui and 4 others (2011 SCMR 948) and also referred to the 
statements made by Faisal Raza Abdi and the statements made by Khadim 
Hussain Rizvi, President, Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan at Faizabad Dharna in 
respect of which the Court took no action against the above two persons. He 
further contended that the two speeches of the alleged contemnor have been 
quoted out of contexts and that it could not be used against the alleged contemnor. 
We may note that though the alleged contemnor has taken this line of defence in 
this contempt proceeding against him but burden to prove the fact that these two 
speeches have been referred out of context, was upon him. He produced as many 
as five witnesses and even the General Manager from PEMRA but he never 
bothered to produce before the Court the whole text of his two speeches to show 
Crl.Org.P.No.09 of 2018 
16
that they are out of context. Once the alleged contemnor has taken up the defence 
on a point that his two speeches have been referred to out of context, the burden 
was upon him to show and establish that such was the case, which he failed to do.  
22. 
 
As regard the submission of the learned Sr.ASC for the alleged 
contemnor that the Court ought to show judicial restraint. We have gone through 
the judgment cited by him and are of the view that these are not of much help to 
the alleged contemnor as the principle of judicial restraint is not a universal 
principle to be applied in each and every case as each and every case is based 
upon its own different facts, which in law are required to be dealt with in the 
peculiar facts and circumstances at their own case. The alleged contemnor in his 
two speeches as have been reproduced above in order to show his unfaltering 
allegiance to Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, who as Prime Minister of Pakistan 
and was ousted from office by the judgment rendered by this Court in PANAMA 
case has uttered words seriously prejudicing the office of the Hon’ble Chief 
Justice of Pakistan and the judges of this Court and ultimately the whole Court as 
an Institution and his utterances were not at all or within the ambit of the decency, 
morality and decorum but showed utter venom for which he himself has no cause 
of his own. The alleged contemnor in his two speeches has not only abused the 
judges of this Court but has scandalized the Court and did everything to bring the 
Court into hatred, ridicule and contempt, which is substantially detrimental to the 
administration of justice and scandalizes the Court and tends to bring the Court 
and judges of the Court into hatred and ridicule.        
23. 
 
For all the above reasons, we are satisfied that the alleged 
contemnor has committed contempt of Court within the meaning of Article 204 of 
the Constitution read with Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 
and made himself liable for punishment. Thus he is convicted and sentenced 
under Sections 3 & 5 of the Ordinance, 2003 and punished with imprisonment till 
the rising of the Court with fine of Rs.100,000/-. 
 
Crl.Org.P.No.09 of 2018 
17
24. 
 
The Contempt proceeding in the above terms stand disposed of.       
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad 
Special Bench 
Rabbani/PS 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
Announced in open Court on   
 
 
 
.  
 
 
JUDGE  
 
Approved for reporting.