ISLAMABAD, May 8: The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment in the case of roughing up of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry by the hierarchy of the city administration and police in an attempt to prevent him from walking up to the court house for his first appearance before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) after his suspension in March.
A three-member bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Justice Nasirul Mulk took up the inquiry report of Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan of the Peshawar High Court on manhandling of the chief justice.
On March 20, Justice Javed Iqbal while acting as Acting Chief Justice had appointed Justice Afzal to probe and fix responsibility on delinquent officers and suggest ways to avoid such incidents in future.
After recording evidence of journalists, police officers and other witnesses, the inquiry commission had held top capital administration and police guilty of committing contempt of the court by interfering with the course of administration of justice.
The seven officers charged for committing contempt under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act 1976 read with Article 204 of the Constitution are: Chief Commissioner of Islamabad Khalid Pervaiz, Deputy Commissioner Mohammad Ali, Inspector General of Police (IGP) Chaudhry Iftikhar Ahmad, Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Capt (retd) Zafar Iqbal, Deputy Superintendent of Police Jamil Hashmi, Station House Officer of the Police Station Secretariat Rukhsar Mehdi and Assistant Sub-Inspector/Security Guard to IGP Siraj Ahmad.
Under contempt of the court rules, the Supreme Court has the authority to award six months imprisonment to each contemnor, with a maximum fine of Rs100,000.
On Tuesday, Attorney General Makhdoom Ali took the stand before the court that the contempt had always been a matter between the court and the contemnor and it was with the court to pardon when an unconditional apology was tendered.
Advocate Mujeebur Rehman, representing the chief commissioner, IG and SSP, pleaded before the court to accept, in the interest of justice, the unqualified and sincere apologies the contemnors had offered.
The purpose behind contempt of the court law, he explained, was to uphold the dignity of the court and said his clients had also expressed their determination to follow the same in future. “They have already faced public reaction which is enough punishment,” he said.
Justice Nasirul Mulk observed whether the counsel was suggesting to forgive them reminding that this was the case of manhandling of the chief justice.
Raja Bashir advocate defending the deputy commissioner argued that though he was aware that contempt of the court was not pardonable, apology should be accepted when a contemnor expressed his repentance. “My client has already placed himself at the mercy of the court,” he said.
Advocates Qazi Amin and Raja Ibrahim Satti also defended Rukhsar Mehdi, Siraj Ahmed and DSP, respectively.
