ISLAMABAD – Hearing Zulfikar Ali Bhutto reference case on Thursday, the Supreme Court issued notice to the federation’s counsel and PPP leader Babar Awan, asking him as to why his licence should not be cancelled on his making a mockery of the contempt of court notice issued to him.
The court noticed that Babar Awan, talking to media on Wednesday, berated issuance of contempt of court notice issued to him by a two-member SC bench by uttering a verse in Seraiki language: ‘Notice milya, kakh na hilleya, keun sohneyan da gila karan; mai lakh wari, Bismillah karan’ (The notice was issued but nothing happened, so why should I complain. I will always welcome such moves).
The footage of Babar Awan was displayed on the multimedia at the courtroom which was watched not only by the senior members of the bar, but also by Supreme Court Bar Association President Yasin Azad and Pakistan Bar Council Vice Chairman Latif Afridi. Both of them condemned the derogatory remarks against the judiciary. The bench noted that the content of the utterance, the gestures made and the body language were indicative of an attempt to ridicule the apex court.
As the 11-member bench was about to resume hearing of ZAB Reference case, the chief justice at the onset of the proceeding asked Babar Awan why after receipt of contempt of court notice yesterday (Wednesday) by a two-member bench in respect of press conference addressed by him and other PPP leaders on Dec 1, 2011, while talking to media in the premises of SC building, ridiculed the judiciary.
The court said: “We have prima facie of the opinion that the conduct of Babar Awan is unbecoming of a lawyer.” The court therefore issued notice to him under Rule 30 of Order IV of Supreme Court Rules 1980 to explain as to why his name not be removed from the roll of Supreme Court on or before January 9.
Babar stated in the past too criminal cases were registered against him when he was conducting the cases of Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto and the incumbent President Asif Ali Zardari. But about the words uttered on receipt of contempt notice, he said: “The words uttered on the television in fact reflected respect.”
The chief justice said: “We believe that interaction between the bench and the bar depends upon mutual respect.” Irrespective of the fact which bench issued the notice, the fact remains that it was part of the judiciary, therefore, a person who is a senior counsel appearing before the Supreme Court, should not have uttered these words.
The chief justice said if the court can issue the licences, it can cancel those as well. He questioned, is it right that the lawyers after getting the licences ridicule the judiciary? Babar Awan was enrolled as an advocate of Supreme Court on 29-5-2000 and on 29-5-2008 was conferred upon the status of senior advocate of Supreme Court.
The court directed SC Registrar to hand over copies of the notice and the DVD to Babar Awan which shall be furnished to him by the information secretary during the course of the day. He may file reply to the notice on or before 9-1-2012.
During the proceeding, after the display of footage, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja said: They were not for the sake of an individual. He stated: “I always say that people can criticise judges also but Babar Awan’s utterance on media is too much.” He said even if all the judges have the opinion to ignore the matter he would demand that the proceeding should be initiated against the learned counsel.
Latif Afridi, besides condemning the conduct of Babar, said these things should not have happened and in any case he would stand by the judiciary in the matter.
Aitzaz Ahsan expressing his regret said the ZAB Reference, sent by president was very important as the whole world eyes are focused on it. The SCBA ex-president said he wanted to address the court on this issue. He said the judiciary wanted democracy to flourish in the country, therefore, in its July 31 judgment the court though declared Hameed Dogar’s appointment as Chief Justice of Pakistan unlawful, but validated the president’s oath. He said now some people intentionally or unintentionally wanted clash between the institutions.
The chief justice said the court had allowed the federation to reframe the questions on ZAB Reference. He said: “We will hear this case,” adding that if lawyers, federation and the bench’s objective is that there should be rule of law and democracy in the country, where is the clash between the institutions? The hearing was adjourned till January 9.