LAHORE, Aug 24: Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Dr Sher Afgan Niazi could face up to six months of imprisonment and disqualification for life if the Supreme Court convicts him of committing contempt of court, legal experts say.

Niazi appearing on a television programme had said he did not accept the Supreme Court’s decision of allowing the Sharifs to return home because it reeked of partiality.

“If a member (of parliament) is convicted of committing contempt of court, he shall vacate his seat,” said Nasim Hasan Shah, a former chief justice of Pakistan.

According to the law, he said, a convict could not contest polls if it was determined that he had brought the court into disrespect. He said the court normally accepted apologies, but handed down punishment if it considered the case to be one of contempt.

Answering a question, he said politicians were convicted in the Supreme Court storming case because they had brought the court into disrepute. “People should refrain from violating the sanctity of courts. A fair comment may be pardonable, but a deliberate act of contempt is not,” the former chief justice said.

Commenting on the subject, Senator S M Zafar said under Article 204 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court could issue a notice to a person for committing contempt of court. He said in some cases, the procedure, called a summary trial, required recording of evidence. “In other case, the court announces the verdict after hearing the accused in response to the issuance of a notice,” he added.

A fine line might exist between limiting one’s comments to the realm of rationality and violating it, he said. “However, there are a number of verdicts shedding enough light on the subject,” he said.

He said the purpose of the law was to restrain people from assailing the honour, sanctity and respect of the court. He added that ordinarily the courts pardoned the accused after giving him a warning, but the language of a comment could alter the balance.

Apology of an accused could be accepted if the speech, used in making a comment upon a verdict, was not offensive and contained more substance than criticism, he observed.

“Conviction in a contempt of court should be rarely exercised and judges should not be very sensitive unless a person ridicules the judiciary, court or commits an act that is tantamount to obstruction of justice,” Mr Zafar said.

In some cases, he said, a conviction hinged upon the maturity of the judges too. “Some judges are very emotional and get hurt easily; others don’t get affected easily,” he added.

He said the Supreme Court had pardoned Wali Khan after he was issued a notice for ridiculing the judiciary. Former Chief Justice of Pakistan Ajmal Mian also had ignored Mian Nawaz Sharif’s remarks against the judiciary, he recalled.