Lawyers on strike to protest arrests of Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha halt all legal proceedings, Islamabad High Court PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that it possesses the power to initiate contempt of court proceedings under the current constitutional framework.
In a 13-page judgment written by Justice Aamer Farooq in a contempt of court case, the court observed that the FCC possesses the power to initiate, adjudicate or otherwise entertain contempt of court proceedings within the existing constitutional framework, despite the absence of any express reference to this Court in the 2003 contempt of court order.
“We find that this is the case. This power flows directly from Articles 204 and 189 of the 1973 Constitution. Be that as it may, this court is of the view that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in its constitutional character and essential to the effective exercise of its functions.”
During the 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 2003 contempt of court order does not recognize the FCC as a superior court. Therefore, it was argued, the court has no jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings.
Rejecting this argument, the judgment held that Section 204 is a self-executing provision and does not require prior or concurrent legislative enactment for the exercise or regulation of the powers conferred by it.
“The jurisdiction flows directly from the Constitution and is complete in its essential contours. Although Parliament may, under Article 204(4), regulate the manner of its exercise, the absence of such legislation does not prevent or suspend the authority of the Court. The provision is therefore capable of operating on its own, without the need for further statutory aid,” the Court observed.
The judgment further highlighted the role of the Court within the constitutional framework, stating:
“Any legislative or executive action can be reviewed through judicial review by the courts. This Court is therefore uniquely positioned as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.”
Raising a key question, the court asked whether its orders or judgments could remain unimplemented. “The answer is unquestionably negative. If any individual disobeys the orders or judgments of this court, such conduct gives rise to the exercise of contempt powers under Section 204, which operates independently of any law, thereby making such 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 intrinsically linked to judicial independence.
“Litigants approach the courts to resolve their disputes, and it is the courts that adjudicate and resolve these matters. Access to justice, closely linked to the independence of the judiciary, reflects public confidence in the justice system. When court orders are not enforced or judicial pronouncements are ignored as if they were thrown into the void, firm and uncompromising action becomes imperative.
“No leniency can be given on this point. At the same time, a note of caution is called for: 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, for its usefulness depends on the wisdom and restraint with which it is exercised,” the judgment said.
