Lawyers’ strike protesting arrests of Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha halts all court proceedings, Islamabad High Court PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that it has the authority to initiate contempt of court proceedings under the existing constitutional framework.
In a 13-page ruling written by Justice Aamer Farooq in a contempt matter, the court observed that the FCC possesses the authority to initiate, adjudicate or otherwise consider contempt of court proceedings under the existing constitutional framework, despite the absence of any express reference to this Court in the Contempt of Court Ordinance of 2003.
“We hold that yes. This power derives directly from articles 204 and 189 of the 1973 Constitution. In any case, this court considers that the power to punish for contempt is inherent to its constitutional character and essential to the effective performance of its functions.”
During proceedings before a division bench of the FCC, headed by Justice Aamer Farooq, it was argued that although the term “Federal Constitutional Court” was inserted in Article 204(1) of the Constitution, the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 does not recognize the FCC as a high court. Therefore, it was held that the court lacks jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings.
Dismissing the argument, the ruling held that Article 204 is a provision of immediate application and does not require prior or simultaneous legislative enactment for the exercise or regulation of the powers it confers.
“The jurisdiction arises directly from the Constitution and is complete in its essential aspects. While Parliament may, under Article 204(4), regulate the manner of its exercise, the absence of such legislation does not impede or suspend the authority of the Court. Therefore, the provision is capable of standing on its own, without the need for supplementary legal aid,” the court observed.
The ruling further emphasized the court’s role within the constitutional framework, stating:
“Any legislative or executive action is open to scrutiny through judicial review by the courts. Therefore, this Court occupies a unique position as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.”
Raising a key question, the court asked whether its orders or judgments can be allowed to remain unimplemented. “The answer is unquestionably negative. If any individual disobeys the orders or rulings of this court, such conduct attracts the exercise of contempt powers under Article 204, which operates independently of any legal provision, thus making this authority inherent in the judicial structure itself.”
The court stressed that the authority to initiate contempt proceedings is essential to ensure effective functioning and is intrinsically linked to judicial independence.
“Litigants go to court to resolve their disputes, and it is the courts that rule and resolve those issues. Access to justice, intertwined with the independence of the judiciary, reflects public confidence in the judicial system. When court orders are not implemented, or judicial pronouncements are ignored as if they were thrown into the air, it becomes imperative to take firm and uncompromising action.
“No leniency can be allowed in this regard. At the same time, a note of caution is necessary: this power should be used sparingly and only in serious cases. Courts should not be overly sensitive or overzealous in discovering new forms of contempt, since its usefulness depends on the wisdom and moderation with which it is exercised,” the judgment stated.
