Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed on Friday that there must be a plausible rationale behind the promulgation of any law. A five-judge bench of apex court comprising Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain, Justice Jawad S Khawaja and Justice Tassadduq Hussain Jilani resumed the hearing of various identical petitions challenging the Contempt of Court Act 2012.
Justice S. Khawaja remarked that more than 60 percent cases addressed by the higher judiciary related to the executive which, according to him, was not the job description of judiciary. Representing various petitioners before the bench Raja Afrasiab, Rashid A Rizvi and Barrister Zafarullah Khan advanced arguments against the recently-passed contempt law.
Submitting his arguments, the counsel for Sindh Bar Council Rashid A. Rizvi pleaded that under Article 204 (3) of the Constitution Parliament had no power to legislate on the question of jurisdiction, immunities, exemptions, definitions of contempt. Rizvi declared the new contempt law was beyond the scope of Article 204 (3) of the Constitution. The Chief Justice emphasised the need for respecting the rule of law and observing court orders. He further observed that the parliament was required to keep constitution in mind while it enacted any legislation.
Citing Section 8 of the new Contempt of Court Act 2012, Barrister Zafarullah Khan claimed that it had lowered the status and reduced the power of the judges of superior court. Barrister Khan pleaded that a magistrate could convict a contemnor under Sections 476 to 478 of the Cr.PC but under the new contempt law such power had been snatched away from the apex court. According to Khan, Article 204 makes it abundantly clear that Supreme Court has constitutional powers to punish a contemnor.
In his arguments, Raja Afrasiab said Parliament could not alter the constitutional definition of contempt of court on the basis of mere majority. According to him, the Constitution has already described the subject matter quite clearly and unambiguously. Later, the bench adjourned the hearing of case till July 30.
Comments
Comments are closed.