KARACHI, Feb 1: A five-member bench of the Sindh High Court dismissed two contempt cases against former chief minister Dr Arbab Ghulam Rahim while another deferred announcement of its order on the maintainability of a suo motu inquiry into the May 12, 2007, mayhem in the city because of the absence of one its members.

The bench seized of the suo motu case consisted of Chief Justice Mohammad Afzal Soomro and Justices Munib Ahmed Khan, Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, Abdur Rehman Farooq Pirzada and Rana M. Shamim. Justice Pirzada could not return from the Larkana circuit well in time and the announcement of the order was put off.

Discharging the contempt notices against the ex-CM by separate detailed orders, another five-member bench comprising the CJ and Justices M. A. Khan, Mrs Qaiser Iqbal, N.A. Siddiqui and R.M. Shamim held that no offence of contempt of court had been made out.

One case was filed by former Karachi Bar Association president Iftikhar Javaid Qazi to question Dr Rahim’s interview to the BBC as reported by local newspapers on May 29, 2007, in respect of the May 12 case proceedings. The other was initiated by the SHC registrar for the ex-CM’s alleged remarks against the then CJ, Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed, at his press conference on October 3, 2007.

The bench observed that the Contempt of Court Ordinance classifies contempt into three categories: civil, criminal and judicial. The contempt alleged in the instant cases appears to be covered by judicial contempt, which means ‘scandalization of a court and includes personalized criticism of a judge while holding office’.

In his impugned interview to the BBC, the bench said the respondent did not say that ‘the courts were interfering in the country’s affairs’ as reported by one paper. Nor did he say that ‘if the courts become a party, no official will appear before them’ as reported by others. A careful comparison of the newspaper reports based on the interview with the BBC transcript produced by the petitioner revealed that most of the remarks attributed to the respondent had not been made by him and every paper has reported the interview in its own wording and style creating doubts. In fact, no such words as alleged were uttered by the respondent.

For maintaining contempt proceedings, it is necessary to consider the interview as a whole and if the tendency of maligning the courts with respect to their functioning and impartiality is found, an action could be maintained. The other essential ingredient is ‘mens rea’ or guilty intention to malign courts. Referring to a slew of superior court judgments, the bench said fair comments about the general working of courts made in good faith and temperate language in the public interest did not amount to contempt.

In the suo motu case, the bench pointed out that it was initiated by the ex-CM’s remarks allegedly justifying graffiti and banners against the ex-CJ. There is no allegation that the respondent was instrumental in displaying the banners or wall chalking. The alleged remarks were made by him in response to queries at a hurriedly-called press conference on October 3, 2007, to announce MMA MPA Abdul Rahman Rajput’s support to President Musharraf in the presidential poll.

The newspaper reports were at variance but according to one reliable account, he said he had received no complaint about the graffiti ‘but if something had happened, it could be an expression of public opinion, which he could nothing about’. He had no knowledge of the graffiti and was not prepared for the query, which had nothing to do with the subject-matter of the press conference.

The remarks, the bench held, were published out of context. The bench noted that the respondent had clarified his remarks at the first available opportunity and his clarifications were duly reported in the media. He has also repeatedly asserted his respect for the judiciary in his pleadings and expressed regrets for any impression wrongly conveyed.

Advocate Wasim Sajjad appeared for the respondent ex-CM and former advocate-general Masood A. Noorani for the state.