The conviction on Thursday of PML-N leader Talal Chaudhry for contempt of court raises a number of important legal and political questions. The contempt charges were issued after Chaudhry was critical of the judiciary earlier this year; he had pointed out that many in the judiciary were those who had supported Pervez Musharraf’s Provisional Constitutional Order. His remarks were certainly intemperate and thoughtless, especially in an analogy they drew to false idols, but some legal observers have questioned whether they rise to the level of contempt that warrants such a response. While the law states that anyone who defames the judiciary or brings it into ridicule is guilty of contempt, it does not lay out the parameters within which legitimate questioning of judicial verdicts is allowed. Chaudhry was speaking in context of the verdict against Nawaz Sharif and his family. The said verdict had at the time – and subsequently as well – drawn thoughtful criticism from diverse sources. To some, there is a fear that an overly broad interpretation of the contempt law could chill such debate. This is why it is important that strictly defined examples of contempt be given while detailing a defendant’s guilt of the crime. In Chaudhry’s case, there has been little given as reasoning for the decision.
Just to recall: another PML-N leader, Danial Aziz, was found guilty of contempt in June and given a five-year ban from running for political office. The same ban will now apply to Chaudhry too. Once a person is convicted of contempt, Article 63(1)(g) of the constitution is clear in stating that they are disqualified from running for parliament. Since the punishment is so extreme, many legal minds have observed that is best to show restraint in handing out convictions for contempt. Other countries are not quite as broad in their definitions of contempt. In India, contempt of court only applies if a person obstructs justice or scandalises the judiciary. In such cases, they are still allowed to defend themselves on the basis that what they said was the truth. In the UK, contempt is defined even more strictly and proceedings are initiated if a person disobeys court orders or is contemptuous of a judge while court proceedings are ongoing. The purpose of such narrow definitions of contempt is to ensure that the law is not used to stifle free speech. Given the taint that a conviction places on a person, it might be advisable for all to be more exacting in their definition of contempt.