| Case ID |
22780fe0-dcd5-4d87-97cf-6e3057c44b28 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Original Petitions Nos. 5, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 02, 1998 |
| Hearing Date |
Mar 02, 1998 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court addressed the complex issues surrounding contempt of court, specifically relating to the powers of the judiciary to uphold its dignity and order. The court reflected on the legislative history of contempt laws in Pakistan and their implications under the Constitution of Pakistan, particularly emphasizing the balance between freedom of speech and the necessity of maintaining judicial authority. The court concluded with a detailed interpretation of Articles 66, 68, and 204 of the Constitution, affirming that while members of Parliament enjoy certain privileges, these are not absolute and must align with the respect owed to the judiciary. This case serves as a landmark decision in defining the parameters of contempt and the responsibilities of public officials, thereby reinforcing the principle of judicial independence. |
| Summary |
The case involved a series of criminal and constitutional petitions that addressed the issue of contempt of court within the judicial framework of Pakistan. The Supreme Court's decision examined the historical context of contempt laws and their application in contemporary legal scenarios. The ruling reaffirmed the importance of judicial authority while recognizing the right to free speech, especially for members of Parliament. This case is pivotal for legal practitioners and scholars, as it outlines the delicate balance between protecting the judiciary from contempt and upholding democratic freedoms. Keywords such as 'contempt of court', 'judicial independence', 'freedom of speech', and 'Pakistan Constitution' are central to understanding the implications of this ruling. The decision also highlights the ongoing discourse on the limits of parliamentary privilege and the accountability of public officials, making it a significant reference point for future cases. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
AJMAL MIAN, C.J.,
MUHAMMAD BASHIR,
JEHANGIRI,
MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA,
SH. IJAZ NISAR,
ABDUR REHMAN KHAN,
SH. RIAZ AHMAD,
CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ
|
| Lawyers |
Raja Abdul. Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record,
S. Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
Aziz A. Munshi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
Makhdoom Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court,
Ch. Fazle Hussain, Advocate-on-Record,
Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record,
K.M.A. Samadani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
M. Akram Shaikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
Syed Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record,
S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
S. Masood Shah, Advocate,
Muhammad Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record,
Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record,
Samad Alahmood, Advocate-on-Record,
Nemo
|
| Petitioners |
Syed MASROOR AHSAN and others
|
| Respondents |
ARDESHIR COWASJEE and others
|
| Citations |
1998 SLD 1023,
1998 PLD 823
|
| Other Citations |
The State v. Khalid Masood, Regional Director, Pakistan Narcotics Control Board, Lahore and 3 others PLD 1966 SC 42,
Saadat Khialy, Staff Reporter ('Kohistan' Daily) and others v. The State and another PLD 1962 SC 457
|
| Laws Involved |
Not available
|
| Sections |
Not available
|