LAHORE:
With the prospect of a contempt of court petition hanging over the Punjab government after its recent outburst against the Lahore High Court (LHC) earlier this week, calmer heads appeared to prevail, as the administration softened its tone and expressed its willingness to work with the court to address any loopholes in the law.
Punjab Information Minister Azma Bukhari said the government would not hold the courts responsible for the controversy, suggesting its position may not have been adequately presented during the proceedings.
“We would not blame the courts. Maybe it is a fault on our part that we did not explain our position to the court in the proper way,” she said in an interview with a private television channel.
Earlier this week, following the suspension of the Punjab Protection of Immovable Property Act, 2025, Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz had publicly criticized the court’s decision, saying it was against the established principles laid down by the higher judiciary.
She had also claimed that the decision would benefit the encroachment mafia and be seen by the public as supporting land grabbers.
These remarks, made even though the case had been referred to a wider jurisdiction by the LHC chief justice, sparked strong reactions from the legal community. Lawyers objected to both the tone adopted by the government and the order itself, arguing that it encroached on the domain of the judiciary.
Explaining the government’s position, Azma Bukhari said land grabbing and land disputes were long-standing problems in Punjab, disproportionately affecting widows, women and disadvantaged sections of society. She said the newly enacted law, which was passed by the provincial assembly, aimed to combat illegal occupation of properties.
She said land-related cases often drag on in court for generations, placing a heavy burden on victims. Responding to criticism leveled against the chief minister’s remarks, she said there was no intention to undermine the dignity or sanctity of courts. “We have nothing but respect for the courts,” she said.
The information minister said the chief minister had taken a strong stance on the decision, emphasizing that once a decision is made, it becomes public property and is open to criticism. She maintained that retrospective restoration of possession in some cases, following the court order, had emboldened the encroachment mafias.
However, she reiterated that the government would not blame the judiciary, adding that the problem may lie with the government’s failure to properly inform the court of its position. She said the Punjab government would challenge the case in a larger court.
Bukhari said the government was ready to work with the court to address any technical flaws in the law, while emphasizing that the power to legislate rested with the provincial assembly. She added that the judges took an oath to work for the welfare of the citizens.
“A scandalous court”
On the other hand, a contempt petition is expected to be filed on Friday against the chief minister and the provincial information minister, accusing them of undermining judicial authority by publicly criticizing an LHC interim order suspending the Punjab Protection of Immovable Property Ordinance, 2025.
The draft petition, shared with The Express PK Press Club by lawyer Azhar Sadique, invokes Article 204 of the Constitution read with Sections 3 and 5 of the Contempt of Court Order, 2003. It contends that the statements issued by the two senior provincial officials amount to “scandalizing the court” and eroding public confidence in the judiciary while the matter remains subjudice.
The petition claims that these remarks attacked, denigrated and undermined an interim judicial order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court on December 22, 2025, in a writ petition, while the politicians chose to publicly attack, misrepresent and discredit the said judicial order, including by asserting that the suspension of the law “will benefit the land mafias/encroachment mafias”.
The controversy arises from an order passed on December 22, 2025 by LHC Chief Justice Mumtaz Hussain in a writ petition against the Punjab government. The court suspended the operation of the newly promulgated ordinance and ordered the restoration of the status quo ante with respect to the properties affected by the proceedings initiated under the Act.
During the proceedings, the court observed that the dispute resolution committees constituted by the executive had exceeded their legal mandate in restoring or granting possession of land – powers which, under the ordinance, were vested in a tribunal which had not yet been constituted.
Citing the implication of valuable property rights under Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution, the CJ referred the matter to a full bench for a full consideration of the vires of the law.
Following the order, the chief minister issued public statements saying that suspension of the order would “benefit land mafias and encroachers” and that the court’s intervention was “not in accordance with the principles laid down by the higher judiciary”.
She further said the move would harm the poor, widows and oppressed sections of society and derail efforts to end long-standing land disputes.
Azma also spoke to the media, indicating that “options” were being considered in response to the court order, in remarks that the petitioner said diminished the binding and authoritative nature of an existing judicial directive.
According to the draft petition, these statements were widely distributed in print, electronic and digital media, and were worded in such a way as to portray the court’s interim order as morally suspect, legally unsound and effectively aligned with criminal land-grabbing interests.
The petitioner contends that such comments exceed the permissible limits of fair criticism and enter the realm of criminal contempt.
The petition argues that while vigorous criticism of judicial decisions may be permissible if expressed in moderate language and through appropriate legal forums, no public office holder has the right to publicly attribute partisan motivations or institutional complicity to a constitutional court, particularly when the case is awaiting trial before a broader jurisdiction.
