ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Courtroom has affirmed that in contempt of court docket issues, the involved court docket should present an alleged contemnor a possibility for a preliminary listening to earlier than taking cognizance or fixing a date for framing fees towards him.
Solely after being duly glad {that a} prima facie case exists could the court docket repair a date for listening to to border the contempt cost in open court docket after which proceed to determine the matter, noticed Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar in a judgment he authored.
Justice Mazhar, who headed a three-judge SC bench, was listening to a prison attraction filed by petitioner Hira Rauf towards the November 2024 Sindh Excessive Courtroom (SHC) contempt proceedings.
The SC put aside the contempt proceedings initiated by the only bench and upheld by the division bench of the SHC, holding that the elemental requirement of a preliminary listening to for the alleged contemnor had been fully missed.
Units apart SHC contempt proceedings for ignoring necessary safeguards
The SC additionally underlined the necessary nature of procedural safeguards enshrined in contempt of court docket regulation.
The controversy arose when petitioner Hira Rauf allegedly violated the SHC’s 3 September 2024 order in a case heard in its authentic jurisdiction. Respondent Rear Admiral (Retd) Mushtaq Ahmed subsequently filed a contempt utility beneath Article 204 of the Structure and Sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courtroom Ordinance, 2003.
After issuance of the contempt discover, a counter-affidavit was filed. Nevertheless, the only choose noticed that Part 17(3) of the contempt regulation required a date to be mounted for framing fees, and subsequently set 11 December 2024 for that goal after issuing discover to the Advocate Basic Sindh to help the court docket.
Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order, however the division bench disposed of the matter on 19 November 2024 with instructions for the events to look earlier than the only choose for additional proceedings.
Throughout the listening to, Barrister Khawaja Naveed Ahmed, representing the petitioner, contended that each the only choose and the division bench had misinterpreted Part 17(3) of the contempt regulation, stressing that no preliminary listening to had taken place earlier than cognizance was taken.
Advocate Muhammad Ahmed Masood, on behalf of the respondents, highlighted the alleged violation on which the court docket had determined to take cognizance, though he conceded that no preliminary listening to was performed.
The SC was additionally knowledgeable of procedural lapses previous to the order handed by the only choose.
The court docket examined Part 17 of the contempt regulation, noting that subsection (3) makes it clear that earlier than taking cognizance or fixing a date for framing fees, the alleged contemner have to be afforded a preliminary listening to. Solely after being glad {that a} prima facie case exists could the court docket repair a date for framing fees in open court docket and proceed with the matter.
In conclusion, the SC put aside the orders of each the only choose and the division bench to the extent of the contempt proceedings, however saved the contempt utility pending.
If the court docket seeks to provoke contempt proceedings afresh, it should first present a possibility for a preliminary listening to based mostly on the contempt utility and the contemnor’s counter-affidavit, after which decide whether or not a prima facie case exists for continuing in accordance with regulation.
Printed in Daybreak, March twenty fifth, 2026
