Call Nawaz so he can throw judges out of court, CJ to Talal

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday rejected an Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) of Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) leader and former state minister for interior affairs, Talal Chaudhry, against his conviction in a contempt case for making contemptuous speeches in the public last year.

A five-judge larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, heard the ICA, filed by Talal Chaudhry against his conviction. On Aug 2, a three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Gulzar Ahmed, had convicted Talal Chaudhry over his contemptuous speeches made in public on Sept 24 and 27, 2017 and punished him with imprisonment till the rising of the court with fine of Rs0.1 million.

For all the above reasons, we are satisfied that the convict committed contempt of court within the meaning of Article 204 of the Constitution, read with Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 and made himself liable for punishment.

Thus he was convicted and sentenced under Sections 3 & 5 of the Ordinance, 2003 and punished with imprisonment till the rising of the court with a fine of Rs100,000,” the court had ruled and disposed of the contempt proceedings. After his conviction, Chaudhry was disqualified to contest elections for five years. Later on, Talal Chaudhry filed an ICA in the Supreme Court against his conviction. On Tuesday, the court dismissed his ICA after hearing arguments of his counsel Kamran Murtaza.

During the course of hearing, a video clip was again played in the courtroom.

Kamran Murtaza, counsel for Talal Chaudhry, repeatedly tendered an apology on behalf of his client, pleading with the court to show leniency.

He contended that the stigma of contempt would remain on his client forever; hence the court should pardon him. “It is a matter of the child’s political career,” Kamran pleaded. However, the CJP asked the counsel if his client was still a child.

The CJP observed that the court was not denying the right of speech, but what Talal said was beyond of right of speech.

Justice Ijazul Ahsen, another member of the bench, observed that though Article 19 of the Constitution related to freedom of speech, but also talks about contempt.

After reading out Article 19, Justice Ijazul Ahsen asked Kamran Murtaza that he had no defence of the said Article, adding that Talal had not issued an apology to date as well. “Everything has its consequence and politicians know well that what they say will have consequences,” Justice Ahsen added. Kamran Murtaza, however, kept on pleading with the court to show leniency and pardon his client as the court, in the past, had shown restraint in the contempt cases.

Justice Ijazul Ahsen, however, told the counsel that the court avoided giving punishment of three, four or six months imprisonment, and punished the contemnor till rising of the court.

“How much further leniency we could show,” Justice Ahsen questioned.

The chief justice asked Kamran Murtaza as to who was he calling PCO’s (Provisional Constitutional Order) idol? “Is he an idol destroyer? Are we doing injustice over here?” the chief justice asked the lawyer.

The CJP recalled that Talal kept on addressing former premier Nawaz Sharif in his speech and even he did not stop him from the contempt of court.

The CJP, while admonishing Talal, said: “Should I summon Mian Sahib whom you kept addressing in your speech. Call Mian Sahib, so he can throw out the PCO judges. Can he throw us?

“Which idol had you talked about throwing out of court?” the CJP further questioned.

He questioned as to why the office of attorney general did not file a request for enhancing the sentence of the contemnor?

Talal Chaudhry, however, replied that symbolically they use the term PCO (Provisional Constitutional Order).

To this, Justice Ijazul Ahsen remarked, “You are not ready to issue an apology even today.”

The CJP noted that Talal Chaudhry labelled them as infidels, saying they were idols and throw them out of the court. “Can the court be further scandalised?” Justice Nisar continued.

The court asked Kamran Murtaza to justify his stance as to how the contempt will affect Talal’s political career?

The counsel replied that his client will not be able to contest in the polls for the next five years, to which the chief justice said that as a punishment he should not contest for five years.

Justice Umer Ata Bandyal, another member of the bench, observed that the contemnor insulted an institution, not a person and did so with arrogance.

“Had he shown remorse and tendered an apology, the CJP would have definitely show leniency,” Justice Bandyal remarked, adding “Idols in Ka’aba comment was very harsh.”

Meanwhile, Talal Chaudhry came to the rostrum and pleaded that he had expressed remorse during several talk shows.

The CJ, however, told Talal that he had justified his speech in the talk shows “and we will call for the record of the talk shows.”

The chief justice asked Chaudhry to submit an affidavit that he will not contest elections in the next five years; however, his counsel pleaded against it.

Kamran Murtaza said that the speech was aired out of context.”

Justice Nisar then said that records of his speech can be summoned from all channels.

For satisfaction of the counsel, the video clip of Talal’s speech was played once again in the court after which Justice Nisar asked Murtaza, “Tell us where editing was done.”

Kamran Murtaza also cited various cases of contempt including Khan Abdul Wali Khan, Imran Khan, Mirza Aslam Beg and Riaz Hanif Rahi etc, adding that the court had shown restraint; therefore, his client should also be pardoned. The counsel further said that Imran Khan had also used harsh words.

The CJP then pointed out that in Wali Khan case, Wali Khan had said sorry for his words, adding that at one point he had also expressed his regrets as well. Later, the court dismissed the intra-court appeal of Talal Chaudhry.