The Supreme Court on Friday accepted the apologies tendered by lawmakers Faisal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal for their tirades against the judiciary but also warned them against “further transgression”.

It also again issued show-cause notices to 34 media channels, including 26 whose explanations Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa said were “not justifiable”.

The development came as a three-member bench — headed by CJP Isa and including Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi — resumed hearing the contempt case against the lawmakers.

On May 17, a three-judge SC bench had issued contempt notices to independent Senator Vawda and Kamal, a Muttahida Qaumi-Movement—Pakistan (MQM-P) MNA, for several “malicious” allegations against the judiciary and the judges.

Earlier this month, the SC had also issued show cause notices to 34 television channels, asking them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for airing the lawmakers’ remarks.

On June 4, Kamal submitted an unconditional and unqualified apology while Vawda had simply sought withdrawal of the contempt charges, explaining he never intended to bring the judiciary into disrepute.

However, on Wednesday, Vawda also tendered an unconditional apology before the apex court, stating that he deeply regretted any harm that may have been caused by his May 18 press conference.

Today, Vawda and Kamal both appeared before the SC as the bench resumed the case proceedings.

Barrister Farogh Naseem appeared as Kamal’s counsel while Advocate Faisal Siddiqui was present on behalf of 26 television channels who had submitted a response in the court.

Dictating today’s order, Justice Isa observed that both parliamentarians had “realised that the words that they used were inappropriate, have withdrawn the same and tendered [an] unconditional apology to this court”.

Withdrawing the show-cause notices against them, the top judge emphasised: “We however expect that they will stand by their statements submitted in court because if there is further transgression, a simple apology may not be then acceptable to this court.”

The chief justice then recalled the notices issued to the TV channels, noting that Siddiqui said he represented 26 of those 34 channels.

Referring to a “preliminary reply” submitted by them, CJP Isa observed: “These documents are not signed by any representatives of the said TV channels but they have been submitted under the signatures” of counsels Siddiqui and Usman Mirza.

“We cannot consider the same as replies submitted by the said channels. Nonetheless, we have considered the contents of the same and the said replies, which are almost identical in nature, have referred to that they can only be proceeded against if mal-intention is shown,” Justice Isa remarked.

He further noted that the channels’ reply asserted that they had broadcast the conferences live in “public interest and as it was their duty and right” under Article 19A (right to information) of the Constitution.

The top judge said this was “despite the fact that during the hearing, Siddiqui did concede that the contents of one of the press conferences did prima facie constitute contempt”.

“The defences taken are: (a) a TV channel is not responsible for whatever it broadcasts if the same has been said by another; (b) that to constitute contempt there must be mal-intent; (c) it is their right and duty to do so,” the chief justice observed.

“The explanation is prima facie not justifiable. Accordingly, we are now constrained to issue show-cause notices to all the said channels who have submitted the replies.

“Since the remaining channels have not submitted any reply, we are also issuing contempt notices to them as to why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of court,” Justice Isa stated, also seeking details of earnings made by airing the press conferences.

The hearing

At the outset of the hearing, Barrister Naseem informed the court that Kamal had expressed regret on his press conference.

CJP Isa then asked Vawda if he had tendered an apology, to which he replied in the affirmative.

Here, Justice Isa asked Siddiqui about his client’s whereabouts, to which he replied that he was appearing on behalf of 26 TV channels.

“None of your clients have submitted a response yet,” Justice Isa remarked. “Not even a single media [channel] has submitted a written response,” the top judge said.

To this, Advocate Siddiqui responded that a show-cause notice had not been issued to any media organisation. “Do you want [us] to issue a show-cause notice to them?” Justice Isa asked.

Here, Justice Abbasi remarked that a response signed by a responsible officer of the media organisations should have been submitted. The CJP observed that the channels had not implemented the court orders, at which Siddiqui stated that their representatives were present in the court.

CJP reiterated that no written response had been filed while the counsel maintained that he had submitted the same, at which the former highlighted that the reply did not have the signatures of any media official.

“The reply is signed by the lawyers and not by the channels. It is compulsory in contempt of court cases for the channels’ signature to be there,” Justice Isa remarked.

However, Siddiqui argued saying that if a show-cause notice had been issued, then the reply would have been submitted with the channels’ signatures.

“Do you not like the Constitution?” Justice Isa quipped, adding that he presumed the advocate would begin his arguments by speaking about the Constitution.

“If someone labels a person a thief, and the media says it has only reported on it, is that correct?” Justice Isa questioned. “Should such free media be allowed or not?” he wondered.

“Freedom of press and freedom of expression are two different things,” the chief justice remarked.

The judge and Siddiqui then went back and forth about the history of press freedom, with CJP Isa then directing the lawyer to read the Preamble of the Constitution. Justice Isa noted that it started with an Arabic verse and asked: “Where is the modern age mentioned here?”

Siddiqui then assured the court that he took full responsibility for the response submitted on behalf of the media channels.

“You yourself said that at least one of the press conferences was contemptuous,” Justice Isa recalled. The lawyer said he had said so in retrospect, at which the top judge said he had not.

Recalling that Siddiqui had written in his response that he did not agree with the statements made in the said press conferences, the CJP asked Siddiqui: “Did you have this written while airing the press conferences? Why are you writing such a thing in the reply that was not said?”

Justice Isa then emphasised that both lawmakers “atleast came and said they made a mistake” and that the judiciary also acknowledges its mistakes but the lawyer was not doing so.

Noting that the response said it was TV channels’ “duty” to air the conferences, the chief justice wondered: “If a madman holds a press conference at a psychiatric hospital, is covering that your duty?

“If any person comes and says he’s a public representative, you will broadcast them?” Justice Abbasi asked.

When asked by CJP Isa about the source of his statements and if they were mentioned in locals media laws or international conventions, Siddiqui said, “There is a difference between facts and truth.”

The top judged quipped he was “learning this new thing from you today”, to which the counsel replied, “How can I teach you anything.”

Siddiqui then said he would submit a response that contained the signatures of channels’ office-holders. “What a gracious act it would be. We will not give you a chance. Do not tell us what to do,” CJP Isa retorted.

He asked the counsel what law stated that TV channels were bound to air a press conference live. “The entire business is of money; not of faith, intention, etiquettes and ethics.

“It did not even happen that the [livestream of] the press conference was cut off once a wrong statement was made,” Justice Isa highlighted. “Now, under of freedom of expression [Article], tell us how much you earned from this press conference.”

To this, Siddiqui replied he would seek directives from his clients but the CJP said the court could summon them individually to ask them the same.

Rana Jawad, news director at Geo News, then came to the rostrum.

When asked how many times the TV channel streamed one of the pess conferences and how much it earned through them, Jawad answered it was aired in 11 to 12 news bulletins. On the earnings, he said he oversaw editorial decisions and not finances.

When Vawda and Kamal came to the rostrum, CJP Isa told them: “You represent the public. We hope you will also respect us. It will be the public’s loss by degrading each other.”

He stressed that the status of lawmakers was much higher than common citizens and told them they had to be cautious.

“We will not take the matter further but will tell you to be careful in the future,” Justice Isa said.

To this, Vawda replied he respected the judiciary and said he wanted to inform the court of the “pain” he was going through as he was “being called a ‘proxy’ which was also reported in Indian media”.

The top judge remarked, “Maybe this wouldn’t have escalated if you wouldn’t have said those things.”

He emphasised that the nation had its eyes on MNAs and on him as well since he was the CJP.

The chief justice observed that lawmakers were protected under Article 66 as long as they made speeches in the Parliament but not for things said outside it.

Kamal then started speaking about interest and the Quranic verses on Riba — a topic he had talked on during his press conference — but was soon stopped by Justice Isa as a judge of the SC’s Sharia appellate bench was no more alive.

CJP Isa then told Siddiqui that “there was not even a semblance of an apology” in the TV channels’ reply, which is why the apex court was “now forced to issue contempt notices to all TV channels”.

However, he added: “If your principle stance is right then stand by it. Don’t come under the court’s pressure.

“Freedom of press is a huge fundamental right, yes? Then stand by your stance.”

When Siddiqui asked if he could withdraw the response and submit a fresh one, the CJP told him not to as the day’s order was about to be written.

At one point, Justice Aqeel asked whether the TV channels would also apologise unconditionally, at which the CJP said: “No, let it be. This would make it seem as if we are asking them to apologise.”

Subsequently, the court withdrew the show-cause notices against Vawda and Kamal while issuing the same again to all TV channels, seeking details of earnings made by airing the said press conferences.