Alert Sign Dear reader, online ads enable us to deliver the journalism you value. Please support us by taking a moment to turn off Adblock on

Alert Sign Dear reader, please upgrade to the latest version of IE to have a better reading experience


HRW urges courts not to muzzle media with contempt powers

November 28, 2012

ISLAMABAD, Nov 27: An international human rights organisation based in the US has voiced its concern over use of “contempt of court powers” by the judges in Pakistan to stop criticism of judiciary in the media.

“Pakistani judges should cease using their contempt of court powers to prevent the media from airing programming critical of the judiciary,” says a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report issued on Tuesday.

“Since Pakistan’s independent judiciary was restored to office in 2009, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and provincial high courts have repeatedly sought to prevent media criticism of the judiciary through threats of contempt of court proceedings, which can bring prison terms,” says the report, adding that since October 2012, “the high courts in Islamabad and Lahore have issued orders to stop the broadcast of television programmes critical of the judiciary.”

“Judges sworn to uphold the rule of law should not be using their broad contempt powers to muzzle criticism by the media,” the report quoted Brad Adams, Asia director at the HRW, to have stated. “Judges have no special immunity from criticism. Unless they want to be seen as instruments of coercion and censorship, they should immediately revoke these curbs on free expression,” he said.

Recently, the report says, Pakistani courts have “openly issued a spate of orders that seek to limit the media’s free expression rights.

On October 9, it says, Judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the Islamabad High Court issued a restraining order to the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) to stop airing criticism of the judiciary on television. The court sought to justify its order by asserting that the media ban was “to ensure that no programme containing uncommendable, malicious and wicked material is telecast by any of the channels in which person of the honourable chief justice of Pakistan and other honourable judges of the superior court are criticised, ridiculed, and defamed”.

On November 20, the court maintained the stay order preventing the airing of critical programming and demanded a progress report from Pemra on a television show broadcast on October 26 on a private channel, which criticised the conduct of the chief justice.

On October 16, Judge Nasir Saeed Sheikh of the Lahore High Court issued a stay order against the airing of “anti-judiciary” programming on television.

According to the report, journalists have told the HRW that major television stations and newspapers were informally advised by judicial authorities that they would be summoned to face contempt of court charges for criticising or commenting unfavourably on judicial decisions or specific judges.

Pakistan’s judiciary, independent of the executive since 2009, has been embroiled in a major crisis since June when Malik Riaz, a real estate tycoon, publicly accused Arsalan Iftikhar, the son of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, of using the threat of prosecution to extort millions of dollars from him. Malik Riaz also alleged he had held “secret meetings” with the chief justice.

The allegations against Justice Chaudhry’s son emerged against the backdrop of persistent tension between the judiciary and parliament. This peaked in June when the Supreme Court “controversially disqualified” prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani from office for refusing to bring criminal charges against the president, an act widely dubbed a “judicial coup”.

The courts have since faced recurring allegations of judicial overreach into the legitimate constitutional domain of the legislature and the executive.

“No branch of government, including the courts, should be immune from public opinion in a democratic society,” Mr Adams said. “Pakistan’s judges have demonstrated the independence to hold the government accountable. But their credibility will be lost so long as they fight against scrutiny and accountability of the judiciary itself,” the report concludes.