Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: STATE VS Respondent: TARIQ AZIZ, M.N.A. and 6 others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Nasir Aslam Zahid, Abdur Rehman Khan, Munawar Ahmed Mirza Title: STATE vs TARIQ AZIZ, M.N.A. and 6 others Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No,27 of 1998 Date of Judgment:1999-05-14 Reported As: 2000 SCMR 751 Result: Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.----Introductory facts of these contempt proceedings are given in the order, dated 3-7-1998, which reads as under:-- "A very serious incident of rowdyism had taken place on 28-11-1997 in and around the premises of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Islamabad. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan by order, dated 15-12-1997 appointed one of us (Abdur Rehman Khan, J.) to hold an inquiry for the following purposes:-- "(1) examine what steps the Federal Government has taken against the persons responsible for the incident on 28-11-1997 at the Supreme Court premises and at what level investigation is being carried out as also the stage of investigation; and also to examine the various communications / information's which have been received by this Court from the various sources including the members of public; (2) to suggest what steps/ actions the Supreme Court should take/ initiate in the above matter and for avoiding such incidents in future; 2. The inquiry was conducted and report, dated 18-2-1998 was submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Justice inter alia making the following observations:-- "(A) The Federal Government on 28-11-1997 appointed Chief Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory, to hold inquiry into rowdyism in and around the Supreme Court Building. The Chief Commissioner has completed the inquiry and has sent his report to the Federal Government. A Copy of the report was also supplied to the Registrar of this Court. I have referred to the salient features of the report in the above paras and have also reproduced some of its relevant portions in verbatim. It is disclosed in this report that action has been taken against a few police officers and Magistrate for this sluggish and casual attitude in the hours of their duty on the day in question. But as for the action
---
## Page 2
against the persons responsible for the incident on 28-11-1997he has left the matter to the police to be dealt on criminal side. (B) A criminal case through F.I.R. No,229, dated 28-11-1997 under section 506/147/149, P.P.C. Has been registered against the protestors/ miscreants in which some accused have been arrested and it is stated that efforts are made to identify the remaining accused. The investigation in this case is conducted by S.H .O Police Station Secretariat under the supervision of SSP. (C) The report of the Chief Commissioner is vague and falls much short of serving the purpose for which it was constituted. Although in this report he has to some extent condemned the police for their indifferent attitude, dereliction and laxity, the Magistrate for their failure to act timely and promptly to bring the situation under control and also the staff of the Supreme Court for confining everything to themselves and for not coordinating with the other agencies yet it has not been able to fix responsibility on any one. Similarly much cannot be expected from the registration of the criminal case because of the lethargic and casual manner in which the investigation is conducted. Therefore, I would make the following suggestions:- (i) As the action of those individuals who forced their entry into the Court premises and raised slogans against the judiciary prima facie amounts to gross contempt of this Court but, except for some of them, most of such individuals have yet to be identified, it is considered appropriate that the Hon'ble Chief Justice may constitute a Bench of the Court to initiate contempt proceedings for the outrageous incident of 28-11-1997. The Bench so constituted can adopt such measures and take such actions as it may deem necessary to identify the concerned persons. Once the concerned persons are identified, the Court can then issue notice to them and then take further action under Article 204 of the Constitution and the applicable law. Necessity for initiating such action immediately is felt because of paramount importance of the matter as the sanctity, dignity and respect of the apex Court of the country is involved. Street power should not be allowed to coerce and intimidate the judiciary. " On the submission of the Report, the Hon'ble Chief Justice, by the following order, dated 25-2-1998 constituted the present Bench comprising 3 Judges of this Court to identify the persons involved in the incident of 28-11-1997 and to initiate contempt proceedings, as recommended in the Report:- "Pursuant to the recommendation contained in Para. C (i) of the report, I constitute a Bench comprising Mr. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Mr. Justice Munawar Ahmad Mirza and Mr. Justice Abdur Rehman Khan to identify the persons involved in the incident of 28th November, 1997, and to initiate contempt proceedings as recommended in the above para 3. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Criminal Miscellaneous No,27 of 1998 was registered and proceedings were commenced in the case. On 2-3-1998, the learned Attorney-General, the then Chief Commissioner, Islamabad, and I.G.P., Islamabad, appeared on notice issued by this Court. During the proceedings, learned Attorney- General placed on record letter, dated 3-3-1998 of the Chief Commissioner, Islamabad, along with copy of the report also, dated 3-3-1998 from the SSP, Islamabad to the IGP, Islamabad, along with annexures. A video cassette had also been sent by Mr. Ardeshir Cowasjee, a columnist of Karachi, to this Court who was a copy of some portions of the original cassette recording the proceedings of 28- 11-1997 on the Closed Circuit T.V. Cameras then installed in this Court and also copy of the film shown on the BBC about the incident in question. It was brought to the notice of the Bench that the Closed Circuit TV system then installed in this Court had 8 cameras: 4 were installed outside Court Room No,1 and 4 corner as on the ground floor below Court Room No,2; and that two original cassettes were available which had recorded the incidents of 28-11-1997 by such cameras. The two cassettes were watched on TV screen by the Bench and also the cassette sent by Mr. Ardeshir Cowasjee. These cassettes were also supplied to learned Attorney-General. The Local Administration, on the basis of these cassettes alongwith other available material in the form of photographs published in the newspapers, prepared 3 separate lists of persons who had been identified. The first list comprised all those persons who had already been arrested in Crime No,229 of 1997 registered at P.S. Secretariat,
---
## Page 3
W .No, NAM E OF W ITNESS 1. Ardeshir Cowasjee 2. MNA Tariq Aziz 3. MNA Mian Muhammad Munir 4. MNA Rao Qaiser Ali Khan 5. Mrs. Najma Hamid 6. Senator Saifur Rehman 7. MNA Kh. Muhammad Asif 8. Senator Mushahid Hussain 9. MPA Ch. Tanwir Ahmad Khan 10. MPA Akhtar Rasool 11. MPA Mian Abdul Sattar 12. MPA Kh. Saad Rafiq 13. Shahbaz Goshi 14. Mrs. Syeda Javidi Fatima 15. Mushtaq Ali Tahir Kheli 16. Akhtar Mahmood 17. Sardar Muhammad Naseem Khan 18. Yahy Munawwar 19. Mrs. Nelofar Bakhtiar 20. Muhammad Basharat Raja 21. Raja Ashfaq Sarwar 22. Malik Shuja 23. Hussain Haqqani 24. Altaf Hussain Bhatti 25. M. Aslam Butt 26. Senator Ajmal Khattak 27. MNA Asfand Yar Wali Khan 28. MNA Ghulam Ahmed BilourIslamabad. The second list comprised 3 MNAs, one Senator, one Federal Minister and one MPA, all belonging to Pakistan Muslim League (N); these persons who were identified and had already been interrogated in Crime No,229 of 1997. The 3rd list comprised 23 persons who had been identified from the video cassettes/ picture and these included MNAs/ MPAs/ Ministers/ Newspaper Reporters and other persons. According to the report of the SSP, Islamabad, the 23 persons mentioned in the 3rd list, identified to be present in and around the premises of this Court, were going to be interrogated in the criminal case. 4. The Deputy Attorney-General had also filed a list of witnesses whose evidence he wanted this Court to record. Mr. Ardeshir Cowasjee also gave a list of witnesses who, according to him could be seen on the video cassette. Other persons made applications to the Court for being examined. Whenever the Court considered necessary, such persons were called and their statements recorded. 5. In all, this Court examined 53 witnesses. Some of these witnesses also produced documents which were exhibited. The last two witnesses, namely SSP Islamabad, Altaf Hussain, (W.No,52) and journalist Fakhar-ur-Rehman (W. No, 53), were examined on 15-6-1998. The Attorney-General attended a few hearings, but in most of the hearings Min Tariq Mahmood, the then learned Deputy Attorney-General, appeared and, after his elevation to the Lahore High Court, Maulvi Anwarul Haq learned Deputy Attorney-General remained in attendance during the proceedings for assistance. The 53 witnesses whose evidence was recorded in these proceedings are:--
---
## Page 4
29. W.No, NAME OF WITNESS 30. MNA Arbab Muhammad Jehangir 31. Abdul Wadood Qureshi 32. Zahid Hussain 33. Mehmood Ali 34. Senator Syed Iqbal Haider 35. MNA Syed Khurshid Ahmad Shah. 36. MNA Syed Naveed Qamar 37. Abid Ali 38. A.C. Muhammad Ali 39. A.C. Iftikhar Ali Shalwani 40. ASP Bashir Ahmad Nasir 41. DSP Muhammad Ashiq Farooqi 42. DSP Liaqat Ali 43. Muhammad Zaka Ullah 44. Sohail Ahmad Babar 45. Ch. Abdur Razzaq 46. Humayun Khan Jadoon 47. Amirullah Khattak 48. Muhammad Ilyas Farooqi 49. Alamdar Hussain Shah 50. Javid Akram 51. I.G.P . Tariq Saleem Lone 52. SSP Altaf Hussain 53. Fakhar-ur-Rehman
6. After minutely watching the video cassettes containing some coverage of the incidents which took place in and around the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Islamabad, on 28-11-1997, and on the basis of the evidence recorded by this Court and the pictures appearing in The newspapers and other magazines, it is apparent that very serious acts of rowdies had taken place in and around the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the day in question. It also appears from the evidence and other material now available on record that a large crowd gathered on the Constitution Avenue outside the outer gate of this Court. This crowd had not suddenly reached such proportions in a matter of minutes but gradually the crowd built up. People had also reported to have come or were brought in buses from areas outside Islamabad. The crowd was raising slogans inter alia, against the judiciary and Justice (now retired) Sajjad Ali Shah banners and flags were also being raised; such banners also displayed similar derogatory remarks. According to the superior officers of the police, who have given evidence before this Court, there was adequate police force available to deal with such crowd but despite this the crowd was able to break the chain by which the outer gate was locked and forced its way inside the outer premises of this Court. A sizeable number of this emotionally charged crowd comprising about 100 odd persons were able to force their entry inside the building of the Supreme Court and around 40 persons were able to go up to the first floor, next to Court Room No,1. From the evidence that has been adduced before this Court, it follows that if the doors of Court Room No,1 had not been closed quite a few of the miscreants, who had been able to force their way up, would have entered Court Room No, 1 . We reiterate with great emphasis the observations in the Report, dated 18-2-1998 that the action of those individuals who forced their entry into the Supreme Court premises and raised derogatory slogans are prima facie guilty of gross contempt of this Court and, that initiation of action under
---
## Page 5
Article 204 of the Constitution and they applicable law against such person is necessary as the matter involves the sanctity, dignity and respect of the apex Court of the country and that street power should not be allowed to coerce and intimidate the judiciary. 7. The role of the local administration and the police also left much to be desired. From the evidence of the senior police officers it appears that, with the force available, the agitation could have been controlled and, in any case, the crowd restrained from coming inside the Court premises and also inside the building. The evidence and other material on record shows that the local administration as well as the senior police officers was aware of the deteriorating situation and gradual built up the crowd which was raising slogans. If immediate, firm and strong action had been taken, the situation could have been controlled from further detrioration specially restraining the crowd forcing itself into the Court premises and then into the Court building. It appears that the local administration and the police did not take the required action. Apparently there was no impediment in the way of local administration and the police in restraining and controlling the crowd but satisfactory action, which was the need of the hour, was not taken. In this way, the officers of the local administration as well as the police impliedly facilitated the entry of the crowd inside the Court premises and then into the building of the Court. 8. On the basis of the evidence and other material on record including the video cassettees, we are of the view that the following persons are prima facie involved in or aided or abetted or facilitated the acts of rowdyism that had taken place in and around the Supreme Court, Islamabad, on 28-111997:-- It is directed that show-cause notices be issued to the above 26 persons calling upon them why action be not taken against them for committing contempt of this Court. 2. Pursuant to the above order, show cause notices were issued and replies received, Thereafter on 1- 3-1999 the following order was passed:--- "ORDER By order, dated 3-7-1998, show-cause notices were directed to be issued to the 26 respondents calling upon them why action be not taken against them for committing contempt of this Court. Pursuant to such orders, show-cause notices, dated 11-14-1998 were issued to all the 26 respondents, which were served on all of them except respondent No,17, Tariq Saleem Lone, the then Inspector-General of Police, Islamabad. Notice to respondent No,17 was returned un-served with the report that he had left Pakistan in October, 1998 having been posted as Deputy Commissioner, , United Nations Mission in Bosnia Herzegovina. He has not IPTFet returned to Pakistan but a letter through fax, dated 25-2-1999 has been received from respondent No,17 addressed to the Registrar of this Court in which he has not taken any defence but has tendered unqualified apology placing himself at the mercy of this Court. Replies to show-cause notices have been received from the other respondents. On 22nd, 23rd and 24th February, 1999, submissions of learned counsel representing the respondents were heard on the question whether charges are to be framed and if so against whom, or apologies tendered by the respondents are to be accepted and/or show-cause notices be withdrawn. Respondent No,6, Mushtaq Ali Tahirkheli, appeared in person and made his submissions. Mr. Tanvir Bashir Ansari, learned Deputy Attorney-General who represented the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan to whom notice was issued to assist the Court, submitted that apologies of all the respondents be accepted and the show- cause notices issued to them discharged. Sardar M. Ishaq learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.9 to 16 also, submitted that no further proceedings in this matter may be taken against such respondents as against these 8 respondents F.I.R. No,229, dated 28-11-1997 was registered at Police Station Secretariat, Islamabad, in respect of their involvement in the same incident and in the criminal case arising out of the F.I.R. Charge has been framed against them and evidence of some prosecution witnesses has already been recorded by the trial Magistrate; the trial is in progress.
---
## Page 6
On the basis of the material on record including the video cassetttes, the replies received and apologies tendered by the respondents (including the letter, dated 25-2-1999 from respondent No,17 through fax) and the submissions made by learned counsel, respondent No,6 Mushtaq Ali Tahirkheli and the learned Deputy Attorney-General, we order as follows:- (a) Further proceedings against the following respondents are postponed till the decision of the criminal case (F.I.R. No,229 of 1997, dated 28-11-1997 of Police Station Secretariat, Islamabad):-- (1) Babar Awan, MSF Divisional President. (2) Ali Abbas, General Secretary, Labour Wing, Rawalpindi. (3) Anjum Iqbal, Rawalpindi. (4) Muhammad Farooq, Divisional General Secretary, Youth Wing, Rawalpindi. (5) Muhammad Naeem, Joint Secretary, MSF, Labour Wing, Rawalpindi (6) Tanvir Akhtar, General Secretary, Muslim League, Youth Wing, Rawalpindi. (7) Raja Zafar Iqbal, Joint Secretary, Muslim League, Labour Wing, Rawalpindi. (8) Malik Muhammad Munawar, General Secretary, Muslim League, Rawalpindi. (These respondents are respondents Nos.9 to 16). (b) The apologies tendered by the official respondents i,e, the executive and police officers are accepted but with a stern warning to each one of them, with more emphasis as against the superior officers, to be very careful in future, fully alive to their responsibilities with no lapse on their part so that incidents of like nature are not allowed to recur. And no untoward action takes place which affects the dignity, order or decorum of the Courts or which intended to bring, the authority of the Courts into disrespect or disrepute, which action could be avoided by proper; responsible and timely action on their part. With this warning show-cause notices issued to the following respondents are discharged:- - (1) Tariq Saleem Lone, the then I.G.P., Islamabad. (2) Altaf Hussain, SSP, Islamabad. (3) Bashir Ahmed Nasir, ASP, Islamabad. (4) DSP Liaqat Ali. (5) DSP Muhammad Ashiq Farooqi. (6) Inspector Jamil Ahmad Hashmi (the then S.H.O. Police Station Secretariat, Islamabad). (7) Inspector Mussarrat Khan (the then S.H.O., Bharakau, Islamabad). (8) Abid Ali (the then Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) and Acting Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad. (9) Muhammad Ali, Assistant Commissioner. (10) Iftikhar Ali Shalwani, Assistant Commissioner. (These respondents are respondents Nos.17 to 26.) (c) Show-cause notice issued to respondent No,6 Mushtaq Ali Takhirkheli is withdrawn. (d) Charges for committing contempt of this Court are framed against the following:-- (1) Tariq Aziz son of Mian Abdul Aziz, MNA (respondent No,1). (2) Muhammad Munir son of Haji Din Muhammad, MNA (respondent No .2). (3) Ch. Tanvir Ahmad Khan son of Ch. Walayat Ali Khan, MPA (Punjab) (respondent No,3). (4) Akhtar Rasool son of Dr. Ghulam Rasool, MPA (Punjab) (respondent No,4). (5) Akhtar Mahmood son of Haji Noor-ud-Din, MPA (Punjab) (respondent No,7). (6) Shahbaz Goshi son of Ch. Siraj Din, resident of B-313, Gali No,15, Naya Mohallah, Rawalpindi. (7) Sardar Muhammad Naseem Khan son of Sardar Muhammad Zaman Khan, MPA (Punjab) (respondent No,8). (Sd.) Nasir Aslam Zahid, J Munawar Ahmed Mirza, J Abdur Rehman Khan, J Islamabad,
---
## Page 7
1st March, 1999. After the charges framed by this Court against the above 7 respondents were read over to them, their learned counsel, Sardar M. Ishaq Khan and Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Kasuri, requested for time till next Monday to enable the respondents against whom charges have been framed to consider the pleas they will be making in respect of the charges. At the request of learned counsel for these respondents, to come up on 8-3-1999 for recording the pleas of the said respondents on which date these respondents should be present. (Sd.) Nasir Aslam Zahid, J Munawar Ahmed Mirza, J Abdur Rehman Khan, J Islamabad, 1st March, 1999 4. After the charges were framed against the seven respondents/contemners on 1-3-1999, all of them pleaded not guilty on 8-3-1999. During the trial, the evidence of the following witnesses of the State was recorded:-- Date of Exam. P.W. No, Names of witnesses 28-4-1999 1. Mr. Altaf Hussain, SSP , Islamabad. 29-4-1999 2. Ch. Muhammad Ali, Ex-A.C. (Rural),now Director (Lands), CDA, Islamabad -do- 3. Mr. Iftikhar Ali Shalwani, A.C. (Saddar),Islamabad. -do- 4. Mr. Liaqat Ali DSP , Islamabad. 30-4-1999 5. Syed Alamdar Hussain Shah, Assistant Registrar , Supreme Court, Islamabad. -do- 6. Ch. Abdur Razzaq, Court Associate Supreme Court, Islamabad. -do- 7. Mr. Munir Hussain, Naib-Qasid Supreme Court, Islamabad. -do- 8. Mr. Amir Ullah Khan Khattak, Court Associate, Supreme Court, Islamabad. -do- 9. Mr. Sohail Ahmad Babar , Assistant Registrar , Supreme Court, Islamabad. 3-5-1999 10. Mr. Abid Ali, Ex-D.C. (General)/Acting D.C., Islamabad, now D.C., Abbottabad. -do- 11. Mr. Muhammad Zakaullah, Former Registrar , Supreme Court, Islamabad. 4-5-1999 12. Mr. M. Ilyas, Protocol Of ficer, Supreme Court, Islamabad. -do- 13. Mr. Zahid Hussain Journalist,H.No,1301-B, Bon V ista Apartment, Balock-II, Clifton, Karachi. 5-5-1999 14. Mr. Altaf Hussain Bhatti, H.No,QB-44,Block "B", Rehmatabad, Dhaklala, Rawalpindi. -do- 15. Mr. Naveed Miraj, Journalist, H. No,BB-322, St.No,16, Mohallah Rehmanpura, Rawalpindi. -do- 16. Mr. Fakhar-r-Rehman, Journalist, FlatNo,6, Taj Mahal Arcade, F-10 Markaz, Islamabad. 6-5-1999 17. Mr. Khushnood Ali Khan, Editor , aily 'SAHAF AT", Islamabad. 18. Mr. Mahmood Ahmed, Journalist 76 H.No,43, W arsik Road, 1-9/1, Islamabad. -do- 19. Mr. Ardeshir Cowasjee, Journalist, Ary Road, Bath Island, Karachi. 10-5-1999 20. Mr. Muhammad Amin Farooqi, Additional Registrar , Supreme Court, Islamabad. -do- 21. Senator Syed Iqbal Haider . 4. On 13-5-1999 arguments of Mr. Tanvir Bashir Ansari, learned D.A.G., Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for respondents Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7, and Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Kasuri, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,4, were heard. Mr. Tanvir Bashir Ansari, learned D.A.-G. Also filed a statement in writing regarding the evidence of those witnesses who had in their respective statement before the Court referred or involved the respondents. This statement is reproduced here:-
---
## Page 8
"P.W.13.--Zahid Hussain son of Sayyed Taqi-ud-Din, Senior Editor in News Line Magazine and Correspondent for Foreign Associated Press of America, Times of London and South China Morning Post states at page 48 (of the Evidence File) "Some of the Muslim League leaders, who were already sitting inside, stood up and started shouting --- Another one of them was Akhtar Rasool." At page 49 (Third line from bottom) "I went around and I also saw Tariq Aziz." At page 51 --- The following question was put to the witnesses:-- Q.-- You, have not mentioned the name of Akhtar Rasool in your statement recorded on oath on 19-5- 1998 in any context? A.-- I see my statement on oath. This is correct. However, I had also filed statement in writing on that day before the Court and the name of Akhtar Rasool appears in that statement, [Statement in writing is Exh.31/1]. At page 54:-- Q.-- You have mentioned in your examination-in-chief that you had seen Akhtar Rasool inside the Court room No,1 on 28-11-1987. What would be the time when you saw him? A.-- I do not remember the time when I saw him, but it was when there was pandemonium in the Court room. Again at page 54:-- Q.-- Did you see Akhtar Rasool talking to others inside the Court room ? A.-- I also saw Akhtar Rasool standing and talking to other people. He was one of the most prominent people. I do not know to whom he was talking. I cannot remember the exact location where he was standing and arguing with others. P.W.14.-- Altaf Hussain Bhatti son of Walayat Hussain Bhatti, Journalist of Daily as at page 57 in answer to cross-examination last five lines states that "It is correct that my statement on oath was recorded on 4-5-1998 during inquiry and on that day I also submitted a statement in writing. It is correct that whatever was mentioned in the statement in writing filed during inquiry was based on what I had seen and what I had heard from others." Thus he reiterates the contents of the statement in writing filed during the inquiry may be read as evidence in the present proceedings. P.W.16.--Fakhur-ur-Rehman son of Qamar-ur-Rehman, Jounralist for Turkish Daily Newspaper "Zaman" at page 62 states "Sardar Muhammad Naseeth wanted me to be handed over to them --- I was first beaten up by Sardar Naseem". P.W.19.-- Ardeshir Cowasjee, Journalist at page 75 states that "The cassette identifies the people who were accused." Besides the oral evidence, video cassettes produced as Exh.P.W.19/1 and Exh.P.W.20/1 and P.W.20/2 substantiate the charge. Photographs…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.