ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the real objective of initiating contempt proceedings against a suspect was to vindicate the honour and dignity of the court and to ensure that the administration of justice was not diminished or weakened.

“The purpose is not to afford protection to the judges from imputation to which they might be exposed personally as individuals or to satisfy the ego of a judge by punishing person accused of committing contempt of the court,” wrote Justice Sajjad Ali Shah in a judgement explaining why PML-N leader Talal Chaudhry was convicted of committing contempt.

Justice Shah was part of a five-judge SC bench headed by then chief justice Mian Saqib Nisar which had on Oct 9 last year rejected an intra-court appeal of Talal Chaudhry against his July 2 conviction of committing contempt of the court.

On July 2, an earlier three-judge SC bench consisting of Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Faisal Arab in the first round had convicted Talal Chaudhry till rising of the court and awarded a fine of Rs100,000 after he lost election from NA-102 constituency in Faisalabad. With the conviction, the PML-N leader was also disqualified for five years under Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Not only on Wednesday the apex court issued the detailed reasoning, but Talal Chaudhry also instituted a petition through his counsel Kamran Murtaza seeking review of the Oct 9 verdict.

Mr Chaudhry assured the court in unequivocal terms that he respected the Supreme Court from the core of his heart, considered courts as protectors of his rights and freedoms, believ­ed in the independence of the judiciary, had taken the oath as a member of parliament and as a minister to secure the independence of the judiciary and that he could not insult, ridicule or scandalise this august court.

Justice Shah in the judgement rejecting the intra-court appeal observed that contempt proceedings maintained and strengthened the confidence of the public and litigants in the court and helped vindicate the honour and dignity of the court to ensure that the administration of justice was not diminished or weakened.

The judgement observed that the tenor and content of the speech of Talal Chaudhry clearly showed that it was designed and worded to scandalise the court and to bring the judges of this court into hatred, ridicule or contempt.

“In the circumstance, the utterance made by the appellant can by no stretch of imagination be termed bona fide or to highlight a genuine issue to earn him a lenient view in the light of the dicta laid down by this court in earlier judgements,” Justice Shah observed.

Published in Dawn, March 7th, 2019