SC accepts apology from Faisal Vawda, Mustafa Kamal, withdraws contempt notice

*Click the Title above to view complete article on https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/.

2024-06-28T12:40:00+05:00 Web Desk

ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court accepted the apologies from Senator Faisal Vawda and Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) lawmaker Mustafa Kamal, withdrawing the contempt of court notices issued to them.

In the court’s order, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa noted that both parliamentarians had recognized their inappropriate remarks. They retracted their statements and offered unconditional apologies.

“In view of their reflection on the matter and their apology, the show-cause notices issued to both politicians are withdrawn,” stated the order.

Chief Justice Isa reminded both Vawda and Kamal of the protection Article 66 offers for speech within the Parliament, cautioning them to be mindful when discussing the judiciary. “We respect you and hope you respect us. Demeaning each other will harm the public,” he remarked.

The Chief Justice emphasized that Article 66 does not cover statements made outside Parliament. He added, “A simple apology may not be acceptable if there are further transgressions.”

The court also addressed the media’s role, issuing notices to 24 channels for broadcasting Vawda’s press conference and 28 channels for airing Kamal’s. The channels are to explain within two weeks why they should not be charged with contempt of court.

According to the order, Faisal Siddiqui, representing 26 channels, filed a “preliminary reply,” but the court noted that these documents were not signed by representatives of the television channels. The court indicated that the replies argued that channels could only be held accountable if mal-intent was proven and asserted their right and duty to broadcast under Articles 19 and 19-A.

The court found these defenses unconvincing and issued show-cause notices to the channels. The remaining channels, which did not respond to the notices, also received contempt notices.

The court inquired whether the channels had aired any apologies but found they had not. The order included instructions for channels to provide details on advertisements aired during the press conferences and any revenue generated from them.

View More News