News
Thursday, August 09, 2012Govt appeals to SC to review contempt law verdict
* Federation says SC couldn’t have proceeded to decide constitution petitions without disposing of its objections under Article 184(3)
ISLAMABAD: The federation on Wednesday filed a review petition against the Supreme Court’s judgement in the new contempt of court law case, and prayed the court to review its short order and dismiss the constitutional petitions challenging the act.
A five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had on August 3 declared the Contempt of Court Act 2012 unconstitutional, void and non est, and revived the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 from July 12, the day when the new law was enacted.
The civil review petition was filed by Abdul Shakoor Paracha on behalf of the federation under Article 188 of the constitution read with Order XXVI Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, praying that mistakes and errors were apparent on the face of the record.
The petition states that the court could not have proceeded to decide the constitution petitions on merits without disposing of the objections of the federation regarding its maintainability under Article 184(3) of the constitution. It said only fundamental rights falling within the parameters of the constitution could be enforced.
According to the petition, the constitutionality of the impugned act could have been adjudged in appropriate contempt proceedings before the high courts. Contempt of Court Act 1976 and Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 were never declared unconstitutional. It has also been held in different cases that the courts do not indulge in an academic exercise, and in many occasions the points have been left for determination in appropriate cases.
The plea added that the petitions were not maintainable as the same were not based upon any grievance or injury suffered by respondents. The petitioners were not deprived of any of the fundamental right conferred under the constitution. The petitions were based on speculation and apprehensions and in this eventuality there are sufficient grounds to recall the impugned orders on the mandate of Article 188 read with order XXVI Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980.
Regarding whether Article 2A has an over-riding effect upon the constitution or it is to be read in the constitution, the petition says that well-established rule of interpretation is that constitution is to be read as a whole in order to ascertain the true intent and meaning of its various provisions. But in the verdict, the constitutional provisions were read in isolation.
The federation has objected to the paras 16 (i) to (xxiii) of the judgement in the Contempt of Court Act 2012 case, saying the findings rendered by the Supreme Court in these paras were unconstitutional and void ab intio. staff report/app
Courtesy www.dailytimes.com.pk