The Supreme Court on Friday accepted the unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by Senator Faisal Vawda and Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) MNA Mustafa Kamal for their respective press conferences, in which they seemingly targeted the judiciary.
The top court subsequently withdrew the contempt of court notices issued to both.
However, the Supreme Court rejected the replies submitted by television channels on airing the two press conferences against superior court judges. The top court has issued contempt notices to 34 TV channels.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, heard the contempt of court case on Friday.
During the hearing, the bench observed that both lawmakers realised their words were inappropriate. Since they have now withdrawn their statements and tendered unconditional apologies to the court, the court is withdrawing the show-cause notice issued to the two politicians.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Isa observed that lawmakers were free to stand up and speak in Parliament under Article 66 of the Constitution.
CJP Isa told Vawda and Kamal that Article 66 protects lawmakers from speaking their minds inside the Parliament, not outside it.
The two politicians were told to be careful in the future when speaking about the judiciary.
"We respect you and hope you respect us. Demeaning each other will harm the public," the chief justice told the two lawmakers.
"We, however, expect that they stand by their statements submitted in courts because if there is further transgression, a simple apology may then not be acceptable to this court," the top court warned.
The court, however, issued notices to television channels that had broadcast Vawda and Kamal's press conferences.
Advocate Faisal Siddiqui informed the bench that he was representing 26 channels that had filed preliminary replies. The court observed that the replies were not signed by any representatives of the said television channels but submitted under the signatures of Faisal Siddiqui and Usman Mirza.
However, the court considered the contents of the submitted replies and observed that they were almost identical.
The top court observed that even if the court assumes that the documents filed before it are replies to the notices, the said television channels have justified their broadcast of the said press conferences despite the fact that during the hearing, Faisal Siddiqui had conceded that the contents of at least one of the press conference aired did prima facie constitute contempt of court.
The television channels argued in their replies that (a) a television channel is not responsible for whatever it broadcasts if the same has been said by another, (b) that to constitute contempt, there must be malintent, and (c) that this is their right and duty to do so.
The court said that these explanations, in its considered opinion, was not prima facie justifiable and that it is now constrained to issue show-cause notices to those who have submitted the reply.
"Since the remaining channels have not issued any reply to the notices, we are also issuing contempt notices to them as to why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of court," the court added.
During the hearing, the court stated that it had inquired whether the television channels had aired any apology, but they had not.
"The same news conferences were either rebroadcast or portions from the broadcast. Undoubtedly being commercial enterprises, the channels make money by their broadcast; therefore, along with their replies, they should also include whether the press conferences were preceded by advertisements, the number thereof and the amount earned therefrom, and the same upon conclusion of the same press conference."
While rejecting the replies, the court directed the channels to submit anew explanations within two weeks as to why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of court.