Contempt of Court

Respondent acted contrary to the clear finding given by this Court — Tried to lower down the authority and prestige of this Court — He has clearly disobeyed the order passed in the judgment of this Court — Held: Found guilty of contempt of Court — Apology tendered is also not unqualified. Muhammad Azam Khan v. Zahid Hussain Chaudhry 1998 SCR 212 (A)
This Court upheld the findings that petitioner was in possession of the suit land — It was indicated in para 10 of the judgment that respondent could seek possession of their respective shares by seeking partition — Respondent has all along been trying to prove that he was in possession of suit land and has been moving the revenue authorities in pursuance of the aforesaid purpose — Details of litigation is available on record and is proved by documentary and oral record — It is clearly disobedience of judgment of this Court — Fresh round of litigation has now been going on for about 10 years — Petitioner has ultimately initiated the contempt proceedings — All respondents have tendered unqualified apology but respondent has not given up litigation — It amounts to contempt of this Court — In these circumstances it is not possible to accept the apology tendered by him — Therefore he was found guilty of offence u/s 4 of AJK Interim Constitution Act read with section 4 of the contempt to Courts Act 1993. M. Shafiat v. Bostan Khan 2000 SCR 532 (A)
The investigating officer, Ch. Muhammad Munir, D.S.P. and Raja Abdul Razzaq, A.I.G. are prima facie guilty of contempt of Court — However, since both of them have put themselves at the mercy of the Court and they are young officers, who prima facie are acting under the influence of their high-ups, we give them the benefit of doubt acquitting them of offence of contempt of Court — In future they would be careful and would see that the Court, be it an inferior or a superior Court must be obeyed in letters and spirit. M. Ajmal Khan v. Asif Shah & others 2003 SCR 164 (B)
Oral evidence of petitioner corroborates the vision of petitioner — Respondent-contemnor has not specifically denied the derogatory and contemptuous paras — When respondent realized that a case has been made out against him for committing contempt of Court, he moved an application for tendering unconditional apology — Respondent-contemnor is an old person and is an Advocate of this Court and has trendered unconditional apology a lenient view in awarding the sentence taken — Sentence till rising of the Court awarded and a fine of Rs.5,000/-imposed. Muhammad Ibrahim v. Muhammad Afsar Khan 2003 SCR 406 (A)
A stay order was issued — In spite of stay order, respondents allegedly raised construction over the suit land — An application for initiation of contempt of Court proceedings — The disputed point of fact is as to whether the alleged construction made on the suit land has been effected before or after issuance of stay order — Held: That in such like cases contempt proceedings are not initiated — To constitute a punishable contempt, a case of willful disobedience has to be made. Muhammad Mehrban & another v. Muhammad Siddique & 2 others 2005 SCR 418 (A)
Status quo — Application for initiation of contempt of Court proceedings — No specific order that status quo shall be maintained by the parties — Status quo order was issued but was preceded by another order that petitioner shall not interfere in the land — The application for initiating the proceedings for violation of order is not maintainable as there was no order against respondent. Mazhar Yasin v. Jamil Ahmed & 3 others 2006 SCR 161 (A)
The judgment of the Supreme Court shows that Supreme Court never decided the handing over of possession to the applicant — It maintained the P.R.T.O. — If at all any violation of the orders of the D.R.C. and A.R.C. has been committed then no application for contempt of Court lies in the Supreme Court — The applicant may move an application before the relevant forum, if so feels advised. Muhammad Shafique and 9 others v. Abdul Karim & 4 others 2007 SCR 273 (A)
The Service Tribunal declared the petitioner senior — An appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed — The seniority determined by the Service Tribunal was maintained — No order for promotion of the petitioner was passed by this Court, therefore, no violation of the order of the Supreme Court has been committed. M. Arif v. R. M. Farooq Niaz & others 2009 SCR 140 (C)
Concept — Administration of justice — The Courts have a pivotal role in dispensation of justice which is the corner-stone of a stable society — Dispensation of justice is an attribute of Allah Almighty delegated to man for which he is directly accountable to Allah Almighty — Justice imparted by Courts have greater degree of respectability and public acceptance then those who intend to perform such act beyond the realm of judiciary —- To keep the respect and confidence in the judiciary alive, it is essential that wilful disobedience of its order, obstruction in the administration of law or disrespect to the Court must be viewed seriously — The law, therefore, makes such actions of disrespect, disobedience and obstruction in the performance of legal duties punishable — Administration of justice can be effective only if the image and respect of judiciary is protected, the majesty and dignity of law Courts is not compromised and confidence of the people is not shaken — In order to have faith of people in the judiciary, this institution should be respected by everyone including the Judges themselves as this institution is the best guardian of civil liberty. Robkar-e-Adalat v. Barrister Sultan Mehmood Ch. & others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 1084 (D)
Fair criticism — Law settled — The judgments are open to fair criticism, but the Judges and the Courts are not open to malicious criticism. Robkar-e-Adalat v. Barrister Sultan Mehmood Chaudhry and others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 1084 (C)
—Object of—to maintain public confidence on Courts—and to keep course of justice free —to ensure the administration of law and justice—the object to proceed for contempt is to maintain the confidence of the general public and the litigants in the Courts and to keep the course of justice free and to ensure the administration of law and justice. The contempt proceedings are not initiated just to protect the Judges but to vindicate the honour of the Court, so that the confidence with the public retains in the superior Courts in the State is not weakened. Robkar Adalat v. Shahid Mohi-ud-Din & another 2017 SCR 1411 (A)
—contemnor No.2, throughout took stance that she issued letter/order on direction of contemnor No.1—Though, she was obliged under law to refuse the illegal orders of superior authority— therefore she cannot be absolved from the liability—it does not appeal to a prudent mind, that being sub-ordinate to contemnor No.1, without instruction of authority, in her personal capacity, could issue such order/letter. Contemnor No. 1 further strengthens the stance taken by contemnor No.2, by defending the letter/order issued in violation of the judgment of this Court—It is very much clear that contemnor-respondent No.2, was serving as a subordinate to contemnor-respondent No.1, and it does not appeal to a prudent mind that contemnor-respondent No.2, without the instructions of the authority, in her personal capacity, could issue such order/letter. Moreover, by defending the letter, issued in violation of the judgment of this Court, the contemnor-respondent No.1, further strengthen the stance taken by contemnor-respondent No.2 that the letter was issued on his instructions. From the very first day the contemnor-respondent No.2, took the stance that she issued the letter on the instructions of contemnor-respondent No.1 and remained consistent on the same throughout the proceedings. However, as under law, she could refuse to comply with the illegal orders, therefore, she cannot be absolved from the liability. This Court in a case reported as Mst.Sabia Aziz v. Director Techenical Education and 5 others [2011 SCR 545], while dealing with the proposition has held that the Government servants should comply only those orders/directions of superiors which are legal and the compliance of an illegal order cannot be justified. Robkar Adalat v. Shahid Mohi-ud-Din & another 2017 SCR 1411 (B)
—conduct of contemnor No.1—throughout proceedings remained undesirable —The conduct of contemnor-respondent No.1, during the proceedings was undesirable. At one hand, he tried to justify the issuance of letter dated 26.07.2017 and on the other hand took the stance that he was not aware of the issuance of the same. Robkar Adalat v. Shahid Mohi-ud-Din & another 2017 SCR 1411 (C)
—conduct of contemnor No. 1—the contemnor not only defended the issuance of letter but also tried to malign the Court while deposing that despite giving plausible explanation the Court directed for restoration of the institutions. Robkar Adalat v. Shahid Mohi-ud-Din & another 2017 SCR 1411 (D)
—conduct of contemnor No. 1—statement of contemnor No.1—statements of witnesses produced by him—also does not support him— rather it appears that contemnor No. 1 telling lie throughout in the Court and also manoeuvred false evidence to save his skin and deceive the Court. The conduct of the contemnor No.1 clearly shows that he played the main role in the episode and tried to undermine the authority of the Court— The contemnor-respondent No.1, while recording his statement deposed that he did not know about the issuance of notification dated 26.07.2017, however, on 30.08.2017 Secretary Schools brought this fact into his notice. The relevant portion of his statement reads as under:- “جو مکتوب جاری ہوا وہ 2017۔07۔26 کوہوا۔ مظہر کو سیکرٹری سکولز نے اس مکتوب کے متعلق 2017۔08۔30 کو بتایا۔” The witness produced by the contemnor-respondent No.1, namely, Qazi Muhammad Ibrahim, Director Education, while recording his statement stated that one week prior to the filing of application for initiation of contempt of Court proceedings a meeting was convened in the office of the contemnor-respondent No.1, in which the contemnor-respondent No.1 asked the contemnor-respondent No.2, that why she issued the notification dated 26.07.2017. Surprisingly, the contempt application was filed on 21.07.2017, when the notification (supra) was not even issued, whereas, the instant contempt proceedings have been initiated vide Court order dated 18.09.2017. In this way, the witness does not support the version of the contemnor-respondent No.1 that he came to know about the issuance of notification dated 26.07.2017 on 30.08.2017. The relevant portion of the statement of the witness reads as under:- “درخواست توہین دائری سے تقریباً ایک ہفتہ قبل ملزم مسئول نمبر1 کے دفتر میں ایک میٹنگ ہوئی۔ جس میں مظہر بھی شریک تھا منسٹرتعلیم کے پرسنل اسسٹنٹ کاشف گیلانی بھی موجود تھے۔ مسئولہ نمبر2 بھی اس میں موجود تھی جس پر سیکرٹری صاحب نے پوچھا کہ آپ نے مکتوب محررہ 2017۔07۔26 (Exh.CC) کیوں جاری کیا۔” The other witness produced by the contemnor-respondent No.1, namely, Khawaja Sajjad Ahmed, Legal Officer, also narrated the same story. After going through the statements, it appears that the contemnor-respondent No.1, telling lie throughout in the Court and also maneuvered false evidence just to save his skin and to deceive the Court. The conduct of the contemnor-respondent No.1, clearly shows that he played the main role in the episode and tried to undermine the authority of the Court. Robkar Adalat v. Shahid Mohi-ud-Din & another 2017 SCR 1411 (E)
—Attempt to intercede Court proceedings—by friends of contemnor No.1—to get favourable orders—such intercession disentitles contemnor from any leniency— rather sufficient to punish him for commission of contempt of Court—as he tried to shake confidence of the general public and tried to give impression that the Courts are manageable— There is yet another aspect of the matter which resulted into loss of Court’s sympathy towards the contemnor-respondent No.1. As during the contempt proceedings, we have already observed in the open Court that the contemnor-respondent No.1, off-the-record attempted to intercede the Court proceedings through his friends who used to make telephone calls to the bench seized with the matter. If he was innocent, he should have proved himself by bringing on record sufficient proof but he has chosen alternate illegal means to get favorable orders. His act of intercession not only disentitles him from any leniency by the Court, but also sufficient to punish him for the commission of contempt of Court as he attempted to shake the confidence of the general public and tried to give the impression that the Courts are manageable. The contemnor produced his subordinates as witness by using his authority mere for covering the fault. Robkar Adalat v. Shahid Mohi-ud-Din & another 2017 SCR 1411 (G)
—contemnor tendered apology— and also defended the contemptuous act— same cannot regarded as un-conditional apology rather admission of the guilt. The contemnor at one hand defended the contemptuous act and on the other hand also tendered apology, such like apology cannot be termed as unconditional apology rather the same is admission. Robkar Adalat v. Shahid Mohi-ud-Din & another 2017 SCR 1411 (H)
—un-conditional apology—tendered half-heartedly—cannot be accepted —It may be observed here that under law the apology tendered half-heartedly just in routine cannot be accepted rather the apology must be unconditional, satisfactorily represent, sincere and genuine remorse which may show that the contemnor has not attempted to justify his conduct, whereas, in the matter in hand, as has been discussed earlier that the contemnor tried to justify his act, therefore, such apology cannot be termed as unconditional, sincere and genuine apology. Robkar Adalat v. Shahid Mohi-ud-Din & another 2017 SCR 1411 (I)
—Onus of proof—always on contemnor—to prove his innocence— It may also be observed here that in the contempt matters the onus of proof is always on the contemnor, who has to prove his innocence, whereas, in the present case the contemnors failed to prove their innocence. Robkar Adalat v. Shahid Mohi-ud-Din & another 2017 SCR 1411 (J)
—object of—awarding punishment to the contemnor—(i) punishment for violating law, (ii) deterrence in like-minded persons— Here we deem it proper to mention that the main object of awarding punishment to the persons who violate the Court orders is; (i) that the contemnor should be sentenced for violating law; and (ii) a deterrence in the like-minded person who without caring for the consequences do wrongs and violate law. Robkar Adalat v. Shahid Mohi-ud-Din & another 2017 SCR 1411 (K)
—sentence awarded to the contemnors while taking lenient view— Keeping in mind the object of punishment and the facts and circumstances of the present case while taking the lenient view contemnor-respondent No.2, is punished with imprisonment till rising of the Court, whereas, the contemnor-respondent No.1, who played major role in violating the judgment of this Court and also defended the contemptuous act, is punished with the simple imprisonment of 2 weeks. The police is directed to take him into custody and lodged in the jail. Robkar Adalat v. Shahid Mohi-ud-Din & another 2017 SCR 1411 (L)
—effect of sentence on the service of contemnors—shall have no effect on their service while taking the sympathetic view it is held that the sentence awarded to the contemnors shall not affect their service carrier. Robkar Adalat v. Shahid Mohi-ud-Din & another 2017 SCR 1411 (M)
—Unconditional apology—consideration for showing grace of Court—only if no attempt made to justify contemptuous act or contest same— Contention: the respondent from the day first by tendering unconditional apology has placed himself on the mercy of the Court and in suchlike cases the Court always show the grace. Held: Principle of forgiving contemnor in case of unconditional apology is a not universal principle. —No doubt, in the cases where contemnors purge themselves by tendering unconditional apology without making any attempt as justification of their conduct and contesting the matter on factual side, grace lies in forgiving rather than convicting them, however, it is not a universal principle to be applied in each and every case as each case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Haji Javed Akram v. Ch. Muhammad Saeed 2019 SCR 816 (C) PLD 2018 SC 773 rel
—acceptance of apology of contemnor—construed as weakness or inability of Courts— such tendency erodes public confidence in judicial process— Held: with contempt cases by accepting apology from the contemnors has been construed as a sort of weakness or inability of the Courts to deal efficiently with the contemnors and a general concept has developed that after violating the judgments, the contemnor can 20 get away with it easily by tendering unconditional apology. Such a tendency not only erodes the public confidence in the judicial process but also imping upon the dignity of the judiciary. Haji Javed Akram v. Ch. Muhammad Saeed 2019 SCR 816 (D)
—Article 45 of the Interim Constitution, 1974—section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1993—Order XIVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978—Argument: Political affiliation of petitioner and persons who filed affidavits in support that of, render contempt application to be dismissed on sole ground— Held: Be that case may be, the Court can take cognizance of contempt suo moto—-Firstly, we deem it proper to observe here that the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, confers the powers upon the Court to take action against the contemnor. From the bare reading of the provisions of Article 45 of the Interim Constitution, 1974 read with section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1993 and Order XlVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978 it is very much clear that the Court can take the cognizance of its contempt suo motu. Haji Javed Akram v. Ch. Muhammad Saeed 2019 SCR 816 (H)
— Argument: Political affiliation of petitioner and persons who filed affidavits in support that of, render contempt application to be dismissed on sole ground— Held: under law no one can be debarred to become an informer of the committal of the contempt; even though a stranger to proceedings can lay information before the Court by filing application or otherwise. Haji Javed Akram v. Ch. Muhammad Saeed 2019 SCR 816 (I) PLD 1975 SC 383 rel
— Argument: Political affiliation of petitioner and persons who filed affidavits in support thatof, render contempt application to be dismissed on sole ground—Held: the application filed by the petitioner has the status of just an information and now the matter is between the Court and the contemnor and the Court has to decide the same keeping in view the gravity of the contempt and the other aspects relevant to decide the contempt of Court matters and in this regard the sole discretion lies with the Court. Thus, mere on the ground that the petitioner is a member of rival political party, the application filed by him cannot be set at naught. Contemnor having been found guilty contempt, convicted and sentenced till rising of Court. And declared disqualified from elected or chosen as, and from being a member of Legislative Assembly for a period of 5 years. Haji Javed Akram v. Ch. Muhammad Saeed 2019 SCR 816 (J)
—scope of contempt law and proceedings—According to the settled principle of administration of justice and the above referred statutory provisions the act of contempt of Court has very wide scope and the same has to be liberally construed, thus, not only any act of omission relating to the Courts proceedings, judgments or orders amounts to contempt of Court but any intentional act of any person or authority tending to bring the administration of law into disrespect, disrepute or to interfere with or obstruct or interrupt or prejudice the process of law, also amounts to contempt of Court. Haji Javed Akram v. Ch. Muhammad Saeed 2019 SCR 816 (N) 1997 SCMR 193, PLD 1949 Lah. 392
—contempt of Court—locus standi to initiate contempt proceedings—any person other than parties to lis may initiate contempt proceedings—For initiating the proceedings, it is not necessary that only the parties to any matter sub-judice before the Court should have been proceeded against for contempt of Court rather the contempt proceedings can be initiated against any person who intended to or tends to bring the authority of the Court or the administration of law into disrespect, disrepute or to interfere with or obstruct or interrupt or prejudice the process of law. Haji Javed Akram v. Ch. Muhammad Saeed 2019 SCR 816 (O)
—contempt of Court—acts declared as falling under acts for contempt of Courts—-Held: according to settled principle of law following have been held to be the contempt of Court:- allegations against judges made by legal practitioner in letter to President; administrative acts of High Court…Criticism amounting to scandalizing the Court; interrupting work of Court and challenging legality of Court’s order before it … gross contempt; to accuse a Judge of a superior Court of acting in an arbitrary manner and with personal hostility; scandalizing Court or a Judge i.e. attacking the character of the Judge or the quality of his work or by imputing improper motives to him or by suggesting that action is being contemplated to remove him from his office; floating orders of Courts on erroneous construction; threat of personal harm to Judge … worst kind of contempt; review of order of processor on the ground that Supreme Court had mis-interpreted the law; after verdict of conviction upheld by Supreme Court, holding of an inquiry to find in roads in the judgments of the superior Courts just to help out a convict; violation of status quo order granted by Supreme Court or the other Courts; wilful disobedience of lawful order of the Supreme Court;
- issuance of false medical certificate by doctor in respect of ailment of an under trial prisoner; differing with the interpretation placed by the High Court and the Supreme Court by using intemperate language by Commissioner; act of extreme highhandedness towards bailiff of Court, report to threat as well intimidatory behavior to bailiff during habeas corpus proceedings; and the intimidation of a lawyer, who is representing one of the parties, is also contempt of Court as it would seriously interfere with the administration of justice.The above enumerated are few instances and not comprehensive or complete rather according to the facts and circumstances of each case, to be determined by the Court while applying its judicial mind, the actions falling within liberal connotation of contempt of Court as hereinabove mentioned may be included. Haji Javed Akram v. Ch. Muhammad Saeed 2019 SCR 816 (P)
—in the contempt proceedings, the matter is between the Court and the contemnor and it is the discretion of the Court to pardon or punish the contemnor keeping in view the nature and gravity of the act done as well as the facts and circumstances of the case. Chaudhary Muhammad Saeed V. Haji Javed Akram 2020 SCR 617 (C)
—plea of freedom and expression, including pleadings before the Court cannot be raised in defence of act of contempt of Court—Held: Exercise of the right of freedom and expression, which also includes the pleadings, an objectionable, scandalous and contemptuous language is not permissible and the same falls within the sphere of contempt of Court. Robkar-e-Adalat v. Liaqat Ali Mir 2020 SCR 676 (C) 2019 SCR 17 rel
—direction to the concerned including State Judicial Policy Making Committee to provide express provision in the Procedural Rules barring all Courts from entertaining contemptuous lis—- the Court while exercising constitutional powers vested in it directed all the concerned including the State Judicial Policy Making Committee to take necessary steps to provide express provisions in the Procedural Rules of every Court for not entertaining any lis offending the limits prescribed under the Constitution. The concerned officials of the Courts were held duty bound to carefully examine the cases presented to them and the appeals, writ petitions, applications, etc. and the documents which are irrelevant, scandalous, contemptuous, scandalous and against the public order, decency and morality, and not entertain the same. Robkar-e-Adalat v. Liaqat Ali Mir 2020 SCR 676 (D)
— According to the consistent practice, when the Court whose contempt is alleged, reaches the conclusion that no contempt has been committed, Supreme Court avoids any interference in such like orders. Islam Rasheed versus Ejaz & 3 others 2021 SCR 203 (A)
—Order of Court for partition of all survey numbers —during partition proceedings—alleged contemnor filed suit for determination of title— Revenue Officer is otherwise bound to refer the matter before civil Court, if question of title is raised—disputed question of fact as to claim of ownership of disputed property is correct or not , needs detail probe—in absence of as such, it cannot be determined that respondents willfuly disobeyed the order of the Court—to constitute a punishable contempt a case of willfuly disobedience has to be made. Muhammad Javaid Khan & 2 others versus Muhammad Nasar Khan & 6 others 2021 SCR 638 (B)
—Object and purpose of law of contempt of Court—to maintain confidence of general public and ensure uninterrupted administration of law—to create deterrence against disregard, disrespect, interference with authority of Court—to protect parties from interference and prejudice—not just to protect judges but to vindicate the honour of Court—a weapon which is to be used sparingly— the purpose and philosophy of law of contempt is to maintain the confidence of the general public and the litigants in the Courts and to keep the course of justice free and to ensure the uninterrupted administration of law and justice. To speak generally, Contempt of Court may be said to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigants or their witnesses during the litigation. The contempt proceedings are not initiated just to protect the Judges but to vindicate the honour of the Court, so that the confidence which the public retains in superior Courts in the State is not weakened. The purpose of the proceedings for contempt is to maintain the dignity of the Court. Committal for contempt of Court is a weapon which is to be used sparingly and always with reference to administration of justice where ex facie some contempt of Court has been committed. Kh. M.Maqbool War v. Sardar M. Javed Ayoub 2022 SCR 1299 (A) 2017 SCR 1411 ref.
—Scope and extent of contempt jurisdiction of the Courts—Article 45(3) prescribes to regulate contempt powers through law and rules—The Supreme Court declared that powers conferred by Constitution cannot be controlled and curtailed through a statute— Held: The powers of the Supreme Court and High Court to proceed against the contemnors are derived from the Constitution and the same cannot be limited or curtailed by way of sub-ordinate legislation. Indeed, in sub-Article (3) of Article 45 of the Constitution, it has been provided that the exercise of the powers conferred on a Court by this Article may be regulated by law and, subject to law, by rules made by the Court, but, in our view, it does not mean that a statute can control or curtail the power conferred on a superior Court by the Constitution. Kh. M.Maqbool War v. Sardar M. Javed Ayoub 2022 SCR 1299 (D)
—Article 45(3), AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974—If contempt is committed in the face of Court or Judge or the Chief Justice, exercise of powers under contempt jurisdiction and award of punishment against the contemnor are not subject to procedural dictates—Court is empowered to immediately proceed and punish the contemnor— The law referred to in sub-Article (3), supra, relates to procedural matters or matters which have not been provided for therein. There is no cavil with the proposition that under law a specific procedure including the framing of charge, provision of list of allegations and the right of hearing has been laid down but at the same time if contempt is committed in the face of the Court or the Judge or the Chief Justice, the contemner may be immediately proceeded against and punished. It may be pointed out here that the offence of contempt of Court is by its nature purely sui generis. It is a power given to superior Courts to punish summarily any attempt to interfere with the administration of justice, upon the principle that persons who have duties to discharge in a Court of justice should be protected and shielded by the law in order that they may safely resort to Courts of justice. Kh. M.Maqbool War v. Sardar M. Javed Ayoub 2022 SCR 1299 (E) PLD 1959 Dacca 252 rel.
—Contempt of Court—If direct contempt is made in face of the Court, the Court may evolve its own procedure—Such procedure, however, must commensurate with minimum standards of fair play and natural justice—- Held: when the contempt is committed in the face of the Court, there remains no need to follow the technicalities of ordinary criminal proceedings, however, the basic requirement in such cases is the ascertainment of truth by providing the contemner a fair hearing to defend himself. In our considered view, looking at the gravity and nature of disobedience, the Court may evolve its own procedure. Such procedure, however, must commensurate with minimum standard of principles of fair play and natural justice i.e., the alleged contemner must at least be provided with an opportunity to answer the charges of contempt. By adherence to minimum standard of principles of natural justice, it would not necessarily mean that Court should inevitably embark on full-fledged trial with elaborate enquiry and record detailed evidence. No universal formula can be prescribed in this behalf. The Court could adopt and follow such procedure in its discretion as the circumstances of a case demand. Hence, when a contemner commits contempt in the face of Court, the Court is not so handicapped to first of all follow the technicalities of law and then punish the contemner rather, as stated hereinabove, the Supreme Court and High Court enjoy the full powers to punish the contemner forthwith through summary proceedings. Kh. M.Maqbool War v. Sardar M. Javed Ayoub 2022 SCR 1299 (F) PLD 1999 Lahore 156; PLD 1993 Lahore 658; AIR 1992 SC 904 rel.
—-Contempt of Court—Lord Denning’s enunciation on contempt proceedings—Court may punish on spot— In the wordings of Lord Denning “contempt in the face of the Court was never confined to conduct which a judge saw with his own eyes. It covered all contempt for which a judge of his own motion could punish a man on the spot. So, contempt in the face of the court is the same thing as contempt which the court can punish of its own motion. It really means contempt in the cognisance of the court. Kh. M.Maqbool War v. Sardar M. Javed Ayoub 2022 SCR 1299 (G) Louis Vuitton Malletier vs Mr. Omi & Anr ( http://indiankanoon.org/doc/27540396/) ref.
—Contempt of Court—Court’s powers to proceed against contemnor and punish not subject to prescribed procedure and law—Superior Courts may proceed summarily —it is on the prime satisfaction of the Court that what procedure should be adopted in the matters of contempt. A contempt proceeding may be initiated summarily if the Judge certifies that he saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of the Court. In that case, it is not necessary that there be a written charge, framing of issue, holding of regular trial or examination of the witnesses rather the Supreme Court and High Court are empowered to proceed against the contemner through summary proceedings. Kh. M.Maqbool War v. Sardar M. Javed Ayoub 2022 SCR 1299 (H)
—Contempt of Court—powers should be used sparingly— Court should not be unduly touchy or over-astute in matter of contempt—it may be observed here that the powers of the Court for contempt of Court should be used sparingly and only in serious cases. The Court should not be either unduly touchy or over-astute because usefulness of power of contempt depends on the wisdom and restraint with which it is exercised and at least before passing any order in relation to contempt of Court the contemner should be provided an opportunity to explain in his defence. Kh. M.Maqbool War v. Sardar M. Javed Ayoub 2022 SCR 1299 (I)
—Removal of Advocate General under contempt—Order of relieving of Advocate General by the High Court even without summary proceedings while exercising contempt jurisdiction the High Court was required to one of two courses; either to award punishment after conducting summary proceedings or to bring the matter into notice of the Competent Authority for serious consideration to the observation of the Court Audi Alteram Partem was required to be adhered to— the impugned order of the High Court to the extent of relieving the Advocate General is not sustainable, for the reason that he is holding the constitutional post. If the High Court was of the opinion that the conduct of the Advocate General was unbecoming, two courses were available to the Court. Firstly, the punishment provided under law could have been awarded by conducting a summary proceedings; secondly, the matter could have been brought into the notice of the competent authority to look into the conduct of the Advocate General and in that case, the competent authority was under obligation to give serious consideration to the observations of the Court, but the learned High Court was not empowered to straightaway relieve the Advocate General and direct the authority to issue the notification in this regard, specially, when the procedure of appointment and removal of the Advocate General finds place in the Constitution. Kh. M.Maqbool War v. Sardar M. Javed Ayoub 2022 SCR 1299 (L) PLD 2000 SC 869 rel.