ISLAMABAD: The Sup­reme Court on Wednesday rejected a petition seeking initiation of contempt of court proceedings against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif for his alleged tirade against the judiciary during his GT Road journey to Lahore from Islamabad following his disqualification in the Panama Papers case.

A three-judge SC bench headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar dismissed the petition with an observation that the court would like to exercise restraint, also stating that not enough material had been produced to initiate contempt proceedings, though Mr Sharif might have crossed limits in his speeches.

The petition moved by Advocate Sheikh Ehsan­uddin had asked the court to adequately punish and sentence the former PM so that it could serve as deterrence for others.

He said that Mr Sharif had in his speeches in Rawalpindi, Jhelum, Gujrat, Gujranwala and Lahore between Aug 9 and 12 last year allegedly criticised the July 28 SC judgement in the Panama Papers case in a highly contemptuous manner and ridiculed the judges who were part of the five-member bench.

Likewise, the petition added, the ousted prime minister had in his address to a so-called lawyers’ convention at Aiwan-i-Iqbal Hall in Lahore on Aug 25 last year repeated the same contemptuous remarks against the Supreme Court and its judges. It alleged that Mr Sharif had left for London on Aug 30 and again bitterly criticised and scandalised the judiciary on different occasions.

The court, however, observed that Mr Sharif’s statements were political in nature and that the Constitution allowed everyone to comment on the decisions of courts but in a temperate manner.

The same three-judge bench also dismissed similar petitions against Railways Minister Khawaja Saad Rafique and Privatisation Minister Daniyal Aziz on the grounds that it would prefer to exercise a high degree of restraint.

Meanwhile, a different bench headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan deferred for a day the framing of charges against Minister of State for Interior Tallal Chaudhry after his counsel Kamran Murtaza requested it to listen to his arguments, lest the court might change its mind.

The three-judge bench comprising Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Maqbool Baqar and Justice Faisal Arab had taken up a contempt of court case against Mr Chaudhry for his alleged derogatory and contemptuous speeches/statements at public gatherings against the Supreme Court which were also telecast by different television channels.

When the court pointed out that Wednesday was fixed for indicting the minister for committing contempt of court, the counsel pleaded that the case did not affect the fundamental rights of anyone.

At the last hearing, Mr Chaudhry had requested the bench to withdraw the contempt charges since he faced no allegation of prejudicing any matter pending before the court.

Earlier in his reply, the minister stated that he honestly believed that he did not utter anything nor acted in a manner which might be construed as causing obstruction of the process of the court in any way nor any order of the court had been disobeyed.

To scandalise the court or to act for bringing the Supreme Court into hatred, ridicule or contempt was not even the last thing on his mind and whatever stated might have been taken into account without relevance to the context due to media reporting, he added.

“Needless to add that Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has himself recently observed that speeches made by various persons are misconstrued and depicted in negative phraseology in order to sensationalise certain matters and issues,” the reply contended.

It argued that provisions of Article 204 of the Constitution dealing with the contempt of court, jealously guarded and protected the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression through Article 19 of the Constitution.

“It is well settled by now that Article 204 of the Constitution is to be construed in conjunction with Article 19 and Article 66 thereof in a manner which should deter the commission of contempt of court but at the same time it should preserve and protect the freedom of speech and expression,” the reply explained.

Mr Chaudhry said that as a democratic worker and parliamentarian he always ventured to uphold the Constitution, adding that the apex court being the custodian of the fundamental rights was a symbol of utmost respect for him and he firmly believed that he had never intentionally or unintentionally committed any action which might be construed as contempt of this court.

Published in Dawn, March 15th, 2018