ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court accepted the unconditional apologies of Senator Faisal Vawda and MQM MNA Mustafa Kamal in the contempt case, but issued show-cause notices to the TV channels for telecast and re-telecast of contemptuous press conferences by the two parliamentarians.
The TV channels were ordered to file replies of the show-cause that why they are not be proceeded against, in two week’s time. The owners and the chief executive of the TV channels, or whatever the name they are called, were directed to sign the reply of show-cause notices.
Each channel was directed to also include in the reply, which advertisements preceded the press conferences. The reply should also stipulate the time of press conferences and the amount earned from those press conferences.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, on Friday, heard the suo moto, which Supreme Court took on Vawda and Kamal’s press conferences.
During the proceeding, both the lawmakers tendered unconditional apologies and stated that they have withdrawn their (alleged contemptuous) statements. Vawda stated that he deeply regretted any harm that may have been caused by his May 18 press conference.
The bench in view of the statements accepted their apologies. It said both the legislators have realised that the words that they used were inappropriate, have withdrawn the same and tendered (an) unconditional apology to this court”. However, it expected that they (Vawda and Kamal) would stand by their commitments, made before the Court. The chief justice warned, “that if there will be transgression by both of them in future then (a) simple apology would not be entertained.”
The bench on June 5 issued notices to 34 TV channels for airing the press conferences of Senator Vawda and Mustafa Kamal. The court noted that broadcast and re-telecast of the press conferences also constitute contempt and directed them to file a reply that why contempt proceedings are not initiated against them.
During the hearing, Advocate Faisal Siddiqui submitted a reply (preliminary response) on behalf of 26 TV channels. The court noted that the documents have not been signed by the representatives of the TV channels; rather those had been signed by lawyers, Faisal Siddiqui and Usman Mirza.
The court noted that the contents of the said replies are almost identical in nature that they have referred that they can be proceeded against if there was “mal intent” be shown and the principle of contempt of court of “mal intent” must be established. They also stated that the broadcast of the press conferences live was in the interest of the people in light of Article 19 of the Constitution.
The court noted even if it is assumed that the documents, filed in pursuance to the notices, the said channels have justified the telecast of the press conferences. Despite that fact, Faisal Siddiqui did concede that the contents of one of the press conferences prima facie constitute contempt.
The order observed that the defence 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 order also said that since the remaining channels have not filed their reply to the SC’s June 5 order the contempt notices are also issued to them that why they should not be proceeded.
The explanation is prima facie not justifiable. The press conferences telecast by the channels transpire that the same press conferences or some portions of them were re-telecast.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments