Sitting Panel: Ajmal Mian, C. J., Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, Munawar Ahmad Mirza, Sh. Ijaz Nisar, Abdur Rehman Khan, Sh. Riaz Ahmad and Ch. Muhammad Arif JJ

This Supreme Court judgment extensively examines the law of contempt of court in Pakistan, tracing its legislative history and interpreting relevant constitutional provisions, including Article 204 (Contempt of Court), Article 19 (Freedom of Speech), Article 63(1)(g) (Disqualifications for membership of Parliament), and Article 66 (Privileges of Members of Parliament). The Court clarifies that contempt proceedings are sui generis, blending aspects of both civil and criminal law. A central theme is the balance between freedom of speech and the imperative of an independent judiciary, emphasizing that while Members of Parliament enjoy certain privileges, these are not absolute and remain subject to constitutional restrictions, particularly those pertaining to contempt of court. The judgment underscores that Pakistan’s federal system mandates each state organ to operate within its constitutional boundaries to maintain equilibrium and prevent transgression.

The case details specific instances of alleged contempt involving public figures, including Members of Parliament and media personnel, who made remarks critical of the judiciary. The Court deliberates on whether parliamentary privileges provide absolute immunity from contempt proceedings, ultimately concluding that such privileges are subservient to constitutional provisions ensuring judicial independence. Furthermore, the judgment explicitly states that the powers of a Prime Minister do not extend to committing contempt of court, reinforcing that all citizens, regardless of office, are constitutionally bound to obey the law. This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s vital role in upholding the Constitution and ensuring that all branches of government operate within their defined spheres

Download PDF