Lawyers strike in protest against Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha’s arrests halt all trials, Islamabad High Court PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that it has the power to initiate contempt of court proceedings under the existing constitutional framework.
In a 13-page judgment authored by Justice Aamer Farooq in a contempt case, the court observed that the FCC has the power to initiate, adjudicate or otherwise entertain contempt proceedings under the existing constitutional framework, despite the absence of any express reference to this court in the Contempt of Court Order, 2003.
“We think it does. This power flows directly from sections 204 and 189 of the Constitution, 1973. In any event, this Court is of the considered view that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in its constitutional character and essential to its effective discharge of its functions.”
During proceedings before an FCC division, 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 superior court. Therefore, it was argued, the court lacks jurisdiction to institute contempt proceedings.
Rejecting the argument, the judgment held that Article 204 is a self-executing provision and does not require prior or concurrent legislative enactment to exercise or regulate the powers it confers.
“The jurisdiction derives directly from the Constitution and is complete in its essential contours. While Parliament may, under Article 204(4), regulate the manner in which it is exercised, the absence of such legislation does not impede or suspend the authority of the Court. The provision is therefore capable of standing on its own without the need for supplementary judicial support.”
The judgment further emphasized the role of the court within the framework of the Constitution, stating:
“Any legislative or executive action is open to review through judicial review. This Court thus occupies a unique position as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.”
The court raised a central question, asking whether its orders or judgments can be allowed to remain unimplemented. “The answer is undoubtedly in the negative. If a person disobeys the orders or judgments of this Court, such conduct attracts the exercise of contempt powers under Article 204, which operate independently of any statutory enactment, thereby making that authority inherent in the judicial structure itself.”
The court emphasized that the power to initiate contempt proceedings is essential to ensure effective functioning and is inextricably linked to the independence of the judiciary.
“Litigants turn to the courts to resolve their disputes, and it is the courts that adjudicate and decide those cases. Access to the courts, intertwined with the independence of the judiciary, reflects public confidence in the judicial system. Where court orders are not implemented, or judicial declarations are disregarded, as if a non-binding and non-binding act becomes a non-binding act.
“No leniency can be allowed on this score. At the same time, a warning is necessary: this power should be used sparingly and only in serious cases. Courts should not be unduly sensitive or overzealous in discovering new forms of contempt, as its usefulness depends on the wisdom and restraint with which it is exercised,” the judgment said.
