ISLAMABAD:
Submitting an unconditional apology in a contempt of court case, TV channels have thrown themselves at the mercy of the Supreme Court and sought pardon and forgiveness for airing the contemptuous press conferences of Senator Faisal Vawda and MNA Mustafa Kamal.
“The undersigned persons again submit themselves at the mercy of this Honourable Court, seeking its pardon and forgiveness and discharge of the show cause notice in these contempt proceedings and further undertake to be extremely careful in the future to avoid the broadcast of contemptuous material on their TV Channel,” states the reply submitted by one of the TV channels through their lawyer Faisal Siddiqi. All the replies submitted by the TV channels are identical.
On June 28, the SC’s three judge bench, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, had already discharged contempt notices issued to Faisal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal.
However, the bench had rejected the preliminary replies submitted by 26 TV channels which stated that contempt proceedings can only be initiated if ‘mal-intent is shown’, that it is a ‘settled principle of the law of contempt’ to establish ‘mal-intent’ and to broadcast press conferences is ‘in the public interest as it is their right and duty under Articles 19 and 19-A, constitution, 1973’.
The bench noted that this explanation prima facie is not justifiedall the more so, when the two men who had held the press conferences acknowledge that their media talks were tantamount to contempt of court.
“If we accept that the said preliminary replies to be a response to the notices, it means that the television channels justify the live broadcast of the press conferences and assume no responsibility for their content,” says the last SC order wherein show cause notices were issued to all TV channels.
Show cause reply
The reply states that the majority stakeholders of TV channels have submitted their unconditional, unreserved and unqualified apology. It adds that such an apology is sincere and shows genuine remorse as it is based on three reasons.
“Firstly, after examination of this Honourable Courts Order dated: 28-06-2024 (especially Paragraphs 1 to 17), which comprehensively and in detail elaborates on the constitutional, legal and Islamic dimensions of the freedom of speech and freedom of media, the undersigned persons have realised their mistake in broadcasting the contemptuous press conferences.
“Secondly, on examination of this Honourable Courts Order dated: 28-06-2024 (especially Paragraphs 19 to 22), regarding the unjustified defence taken on behalf of the undersigned persons to defend the notice of contempt, the undersigned persons have realised the mistake in taking such a defence in these contempt proceedings.”
“Thirdly, the fact that Senator Faisal Vawda and MNA Mustafa Kamal have accepted that the press conferences were contemptuous and have tendered their unconditional apologies, brought the realisation upon the undersigned persons that the defence taken on behalf of the undersigned persons in reply to the notice of contempt in these contempt proceedings was not justified.”
One of the TV channel owners have stated that the press conferences of Senator Faisal Vawda and MNA Mustafa Kamal were preceded by advertisements. Secondly, there were no advertisements during their media talks.
Moreover, there were advertisements immediately after the conclusion of the press conference of Senator Faisal Vawda, whereas, there were no advertisements immediately after the press conference of Mustafa Kamal. Fourthly, there were no rebroadcasts of the press conferences of Senator Faisal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal. Also, the extracts from the press conference of Senator Faisal Vawda were rebroadcasted four times, whereas, the extracts from the press conference of Mustafa Kamal were not. Finally, the total amount received in payment for all the aforementioned advertisements (pre, during and post both the press conferences) was in total Rs. 2,707.
“It may be most respectfully and most humbly submitted here that the aforementioned advertisements were booked in advance for that particular day and were not booked for the purpose of the subject two press conferences,” says the reply.
