2024 PLD 852 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

VS S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 19, 19A & 204---Contempt of Court---Contemptuous press conferences against the judiciary aired/broadcasted by television channels---Contempt of court notices issued to television channels---Counsel representing the channels justified the broadcast of the contemptuous press conferences on the basis that (i) television channels were not responsible for the content when they broadcast what was said by another; (ii) to constitute contempt there must be mal-intent; and (iii) it was the right and duty of television channels to live broadcast all press conferences---Validity---Such explanation prima facie was not justified, and all the more so, when the two contemnors who had held the press conferences acknowledged that the same constituted contempt of court---Those operating the television channels in question had elected not to avail the opportunity provided to them to reflect, relent and, if they so considered, to apologize---During the hearing of present case it also transpired that even after the making of the contemptuous comments the television channels continued broadcasting and (later) re-broadcasting the press conference(s) and/or extracts therefrom---There was neither any retraction nor any apology was broadcast by any of the channels---Supreme Court issued show cause notices to all the 34 television channels to show cause as to why they should not be proceeded against for committing contempt of court---Supreme Court directed that the replies to the show cause notices should state (i) whether the press conferences were preceded with advertisements; (ii) whether there were any advertisements during the press conferences; (iii) whether upon the conclusion of the press conferences there were advertisements; (iv) whether they were re-broadcast; (v) whether extracts therefrom were broadcast; and (vi) the amounts received in payment for such advertisements---Supreme Court further directed that the replies to the show cause notices were to be signed by the owner (if there was one) or the largest share/interest holder (by whatever name called) and by the operational head of the television channel.

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD