Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa led a three-member bench, including Justices Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Aqeel Abbasi. Supreme Court Withdraws the show-cause notices issued to Faisal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal for contempt of court. The bench noted that the individuals had remorse for their actions and hoped they would exercise caution. Of 34 private TV channels aired the contemptuous press conference, 26 submitted a defense through lawyer Faisal Siddiqui. However, the court found their responses unsatisfactory and issued show-cause notices to all channels. Demanding an explanation within two weeks as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. The court directed that the TV channel owners and heads must sign the written responses to the show-cause notices.
The court also sought details of the advertisements broadcast before and after Vawda and Kamal’s press conferences. Including the revenue generated from these broadcasts. During the hearing, Mustafa Kamal’s lawyer, Farogh Naseem. Stated that his client had issued an unconditional apology and expressed regret during the press conference. When Faisal Vawda appeared, Chief Justice Isa asked if he had also apologized. To which Vawda confirmed he had submitted an unconditional apology.
Chief Justice Isa remarked that Vawda had mentioned consulting religious scholars. Lawyer Faisal Siddiqui, representing 26 channels, acknowledged submitting written responses. Still, the court objected to his signatures, emphasizing that the TV channel owners should sign the responses. Siddiqui argued that media organizations had yet to receive show-cause notices, Prompting Chief Justice Isa to ask if he wanted show-cause notices issued to media organizations.
Justice Aqeel Abbasi noted that at least a responsible officer of the media organizations should have signed the response. Chief Justice Isa pointed out that the media houses did not comply with the court order. When Siddiqui claimed that all channel representatives were present in court. Justice Isa questioned whether Siddiqui liked the Constitution and mentioned the importance of initiating discussions.
Chief Justice Isa emphasized the difference between freedom of the press and freedom of expression, and Siddiqui referred to a 200-year-old attempt to define press freedom. Chief Justice Isa retorted, suggesting that it had started 1400 years ago, and questioned why Siddiqui mentioned 200 years, implying it was because of America’s independence. Siddiqui clarified that he referenced 200 years due to the beginnings of modern constitutions.
Chief Justice Isa instructed Siddiqui to read the preamble of the Constitution, which starts with “In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate,” and questioned the relevance of mentions of the modern age. The TV channel owners’ lawyer admitted that the press conference seemed to prima facie amount to contempt of court. Chief Justice Isa remarked that the TV channels broadcasted the conversations and were now accusing the speakers of contempt while claiming no wrongdoing themselves. He compared this to practices in other countries where press conferences are not shown live and suggested the channels edit the content.
Siddiqui stated that he fully trusted the court’s decision, to which Chief Justice Isa responded, questioning the constitutional validity of such a statement. Siddiqui affirmed he would submit responses signed by the channels if the court required it. Chief Justice Isa warned against playing games with the court, implying stricter measures would follow. He questioned why the channels defended broadcasting the press conference if they disagreed with the statements made during it.
Chief Justice Isa demanded proof from PEMRA or international conventions supporting Siddiqui’s stance. Siddiqui attempted to differentiate between facts and truth, but Chief Justice Isa dismissed it as trivial semantics, criticizing the trend of sensationalism on TV.
Justice Aqeel Abbasi highlighted that TV channels often invited people without legal knowledge to discuss legal matters, emphasizing that relevant experts should handle specific topics. Chief Justice Isa clarified they were not making suggestions but wanted the law to be followed.
In conclusion, Chief Justice Isa emphasized the societal harm caused by defamation and contempt, indicating that TV channels monetized such content. He instructed that copies of relevant Quranic verses and Hadiths be provided to the channels. Justice Aqeel Abbasi noted that PEMRA sometimes restricts court reporting, and Chief Justice Isa remarked that some individuals aspire to become judges. The Attorney General mentioned additional contemptuous press conferences against the judiciary, leading to further inquiries by Chief Justice Isa.
Chief Justice Isa clarified his disinterest in pursuing contempt proceedings for personal attacks. But emphasized the institutional integrity of the judiciary. The court ultimately accepted Faisal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal’s unconditional apologies. Withdrew the contempt notices. And issued show-cause notices to the TV channels. Vawda expressed his gratitude by performing a prostration of thanks outside the Supreme Court.
