Contempt case: Jang Group, reporter given one week for submitting reply

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted time till February 14 to Jang Group for submitting reply in a contempt case and adjourned further hearing until 21st of this month.

A three-member bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and comprising Justice Dost Muhammad Khan and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah heard contempt case against Jang Group Editor-in-Chief Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman and Publisher/Printer Mir Javed Rahman. The court on January 24 had issued a show-cause notice to Jang Group for contacting one of its judges on landline to inquire about the involvement of ISI in looking after the affairs of the JIT probing the Panama Leaks matter. The court issued show-cause notice to Jang Group after Ahmad Noorani, senior reporter of The News, declined to tender unconditional apology for his story published in on July 6, 2017 with the headline “SC directed ISI to look after JIT affairs’. Noorani submitted that he had already regretted in his reply and had left himself at the mercy of the court.

“Apologising means admitting of committing a wrong and even of having mala fide intention,” Noorani contended before the court. Apologising would give an impression that he had a mala fide intention against Supreme Court judge which was not the case, he said, adding that it would be even against the respect and dignity of the court. The court than had issued show-cause notices to Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman, Mir Javed Rahman and Noorani with the direction to submit their replies within two weeks and directed the respondents to appear in person on February 7. On Wednesday, Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman, Mir Javed Rahman and Noorani were present in the court.

The counsel for Jang Group, Arshad Ali Chaudhry, submitted that the order passed on January 24 and the copy of the order issuing show-cause notice was on the table of the apex court’s registrar office on January 30. He sought time till the end of March to submit the replies on behalf of the respondents. Justice Khosa observed that the show-cause notice was issued in presence of the learned counsel who, however, replied that they received the show-cause notice on February 3. “How much time do you need?” Justice Khosa said. The counsel replied that they would submit their replies by March-end. Justice Khosa, however, said that “the court does not proceed as per wishes of the party”. The counsel informed the court that Respondent No 2 Mir Javed-ur-Rehman was proceeding to perform Umra.

Justice Khosa said that the respondent must perform Umra but you are only required to submit a reply in a little fact. And if you don’t want to submit a reply then the second option is open for you, he observed. Chaudhry said they would submit reply in detail but should be granted time as Respondent No 2 Mir Javed Rehman is going to perform Umra. Meanwhile, the court directed Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman, Mir Javed Rahman, and Noorani to submit their replies on or before February 14. It exempted Mir Javed Rehman from appearing before the court on the next date of hearing, but directed Mir Shakil-ur-Rehman and Ahmed Noorani to appear in person on February 21 and adjourned further hearing.

In his story, Noorani, quoting JIT sources, had reported that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was in control of the secretarial and administrative affairs of the JIT. To confirm the said report, Noorani had approached the Supreme Court registrar, sending some questions; however, the registrar didn’t respond.

Noorani then contacted Justice Ejaz Afzal, the head of the implementation bench, and asked him about allowing the JIT to take secretarial support mainly from the ISI. He did not comment but said if anyone was aggrieved, he should approach him in the court. “I only speak through my judgments in the court.”

Last year on July 10, a three-member Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and comprising Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsen, during the Panama Papers case hearing on July 10 had issued contempt of court notices to Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman and Mir Javed Rahman for misrepresenting its order in daily Jang on June 20, 2017 relating to an application filed by Hussain Nawaz seeking two reliefs – stopping the JIT from video recording of the proceedings relating to examination and interrogation of the witnesses, and constitution of a commission to inquire into the circumstances leading to the leakage of his footage – which the court had deferred till a reply from the attorney general vis-a-vis the inquiry report on leakage of image was received.

The court had also issued contempt notice to Noorani for contacting Justice Ejaz on landline to inquire about the involvement of ISI in looking after the affairs of JIT. The court had directed Mir-Shakil-ur-Rahman, Mir Javed Rahman and Noorani to submit their replies, asking them to appear before it in person.

In pursuance of the court’s direction, they had submitted their replies and contended that the Jang Group had not committed contempt and it’s beyond its imagination to think of subscribing to any sort of notion which had the potential to be detrimental to the administration of justice, respect of judges or with a remote possibility of being contemptuous. It was further submitted that the Jang Group was determined to maintaining efforts for upholding the independence and dignity of the judiciary and supremacy of the Constitution and law, and could not even think of ridiculing the judges.

During the last hearing on January 24, the court observed that during the course of preliminary proceedings, the Respondent No 3 (Noorani) had expressed regret over some of the newspaper report prepared by him and published in The News on July 6, 2017. The court, while dictating its order, noted that when the court asked him to tender unconditional apology under Section 5 of Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003, he hesitated for a while and then stated clearly that he did not want to tender apology which would be acceptance a mala fide contention on his part. It was also said it had come to the court’s notice that story titled ‘SC directs ISI to look after affairs of JIT’ was prepared and published by the reporter in The News on 06-07-2017.

In that report, the bench noted, it was categorically stated by the Respondent No 3 that the supervision of administrative affairs of JIT had been given to the ISI on the basis of the court direction. “When we inquired from the Respondent No 3 to support the report with any material, he utterly failed to do so and did not refer to any order of this Court wherein this direction was given,” the order read. “We prima facie feel that the said report may independently constitute contempt of court under Article 204 of Constitution read with Section 3 of Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003,” it added.

The court had ruled that in addition to the notice issue to the Respondent No 3 on 10-07-2017, a show-cause notice should be issued to the respondents in view of another report published on July 6, 2017 as well. The court directed the respondents to submit their replies within two weeks and appear in person on the next date of hearing. After the court dictated its order, Noorani contested this and said neither the bench asked him about the issue nor it was discussed with him during the proceedings. At this, Justice Khosa said that he would soften the words of the order.

Earlier at the outset of hearing, the court, reading the reply of Noorani, agreed that the conversation between Noorani and Justice Ejaz took place in a good environment. Justice Khosa had observed that the notice could be withdrawn if Noorani tendered an unconditional apology.

Noorani, however, maintained that apology means admitting committing a wrong action and having mala fide intention. His intention was never mala fide and he only wanted to confirm the information in public interest and, therefore, he won’t apologise, he added. Justice Khosa said under the contempt law for withdrawal of notice, the person facing contempt had to apologise. The word used in the law was ‘apologise’ so notice could only be withdrawn if Noorani apologised, he added.

In his response, Noorani argued that the notice was also issued under the said law and it could be withdrawn, if not issued on the basis of facts. He further submitted that he always respected the court and would always hold the apex court in the highest esteem. He said apology would give an impression that he had a mala fide intention against the Supreme Court judge which wasn’t the case.