Islamabad: The top court has accepted Senator Faisal Vawda and MQM leader Mustafa Kamal’s unconditional apologies in a contempt of court case, withdrawing the contempt notices against them. The court also issued show cause notices to TV channels.
The three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa heard the case. Faisal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal appeared in person before the court.
The Chief Justice rebuked Siddiqui for not following the court’s orders. According to Siddiqui, all channel representatives were in attendance, but the Chief Justice observed that no response had been submitted by the channels. Siddiqui said that he had given a written answer.
Advocate Faisal Siddiqui represented the TV channels in court. The Chief Justice inquired about the whereabouts of his clients, and Siddiqui responded that he represented 26 channels. The Chief Justice noted that none of the channels had submitted a response.
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa remarked that any media outlet had submitted no written response. Siddiqui clarified that no show-cause notices had been issued to the media organizations.
Justice Qazi Faez Isa questioned whether they wanted to issue show cause notices to the media. Justice Aqeel Abbasi stated that at least a signed response from a responsible officer of the media organizations should have been submitted.
The Chief Justice admonished Faisal Siddiqui for not complying with the court’s order. Siddiqui explained that all channel representatives were in court, but the Chief Justice pointed out that the channels had submitted no response. Siddiqui claimed to have submitted a written response.
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa emphasized that the response needed to be signed by the channels, not their lawyer. Siddiqui said the channels would have signed the response if there had been a show cause notice.
Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are two different things: Chief Justice.
The Chief Justice asked if Siddiqui did not like the constitution, suggesting he should have started with it. He questioned if it was appropriate for the media to call someone a thief and merely claim to be reporting. He asked if they should allow the media such freedom, distinguishing between freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
Siddiqui mentioned that the clarification of freedom of the press has been attempted for 200 years. Justice Qazi Faez Isa retorted, asking why not for 1400 years, questioning Siddiqui’s reference to American independence.
Siddiqui explained that he referred to 200 years because that marked the beginning of modern constitutions. The Chief Justice instructed Siddiqui to read the constitution’s preamble, starting with Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim and asked where it mentioned the contemporary age.
The Chief Justice questioned the necessity of broadcasting press conferences live, suggesting that the motive was financial rather than ethical. He asked how much money they made from broadcasting the controversial press conference.
Siddiqui said he would seek instructions from his clients. The Chief Justice suggested they could summon each representative to ask.
The Director of News of a private TV channel, Rana Jawad, came to the rostrum. The Chief Justice asked how often they aired the press conference and how much money they made. Jawad replied that it aired in 11-12 bulletins but claimed ignorance of the financial details, focusing only on editorial matters.
The Chief Justice noted that Siddiqui had signed the response and warned they could also issue a contempt notice to him. Siddiqui accepted full responsibility for the response.
Justice Qazi Faez Isa remarked that Siddiqui had admitted that at least one press conference was contemptuous. Siddiqui clarified he had said “prima facie contempt.” The Chief Justice instructed him not to misrepresent facts.
The Chief Justice questioned why Siddiqui wrote in the response that they disagreed with the press conference’s content if they did not make such a statement during its broadcast. He highlighted the difference between the presenters admitting their mistake and the channels not doing so.
Justice Aqeel Abbasi asked if a person could claim to be a public representative and get broadcasted. The Chief Justice asked where Siddiqui’s arguments were coming from, demanding to see any relevant law or international convention.
Siddiqui mentioned the distinction between facts and truth, to which the Chief Justice expressed surprise and questioned the new concept.
Justice Qazi Faez Isa highlighted the distinction between truth and facts, implying Siddiqui was splitting hairs unnecessarily. Siddiqui offered to submit a response signed by the channels, but Justice Qazi Faez Isa said it was too late and they would not provide an opportunity.
The Attorney General came to the rostrum, and the Chief Justice asked if a lawyer could sign a response on behalf of TV channels. Justice Aqeel Abbasi inquired about the Attorney General’s opinion on the channels’ conduct. The Attorney General responded cautiously, acknowledging potential future prosecution roles.
The Chief Justice emphasized the importance of responsibility, stating that the channels claimed airing the press conference was not malicious.
After a brief recess, the Supreme Court ended the contempt proceedings against Faisal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal.
Faisal Vawda regretted the disrespect and mentioned his hardship when a judge called him a proxy. The Chief Justice noted that Vawda’s offensive comments caused the situation but accepted his unconditional apology and decided not to pursue the matter further.
The court accepted Vawda and Kamal’s unconditional apologies, withdrew the contempt notices, and issued show cause notices to the TV channels.
The Chief Justice advised the parliamentarians to represent the public respectfully, warning that Article 66 immunity does not extend to outside statements.
Justice Aqeel Abbasi questioned if the TV channels would offer unconditional apologies. The Chief Justice decided against suggesting it, avoiding any appearance of coercion.
The Chief Justice concluded by issuing an order to withdraw the show cause notices against Vawda and Kamal, expecting them to adhere to their responses. If a similar incident recurred, mere apologies would not suffice.
The order stated that the court issued show cause notices to the TV channels, requiring responses signed by the owners and chief executives, including details of earnings from the press conference.
