ludUO

for election as a member of parliament in future.
During the hearing the court had taken notice of a press report to the
effect that the post-2008 government had used Rs. 270 million from the account
of the Intelligence Bureau to destabilise the Punjab government in 2009, and
ordered inquiries. In the detailed judgment in the case the court separated the
matter of use of IB funds not only in 2009 but also in 1989 from the Asghar
Khan case and ordered registration of the news item as a CMA to be taken up
in future.
Contempt Act 2012 struck down
After Prime Minister Gilani had been convicted of contempt of court the
government rushed through parliament a bill to replace the law of contempt.
The new law, Contempt of Court Act, 2012, was designed to make conviction
for contempt somewhat more difficult. The law was challenged in the Supreme
Court soon after it was enacted.
After holding that the petitions against the new Act were maintainable
under Article 184(3) of the constitution, the court found that many provisions
of the Act were in violation of the constitution. In regard to some other
provisions the court said they were vague and favoured contemnors, or
envisaged immunity that could not be granted, or violated the independence of
the judiciary or the principle of trichotomy of powers or equality, or would
delay proceedings or make prosecution impossible.
The court said that after various provisions of the Contempt of Court Act,
2012, had been found ultra vires the constitution, no purpose would be served
by keeping the other provisions of the legislation on the statute book. Also the
principle of severality did not apply to the case.
“Thus, having been left with no constitutional option the COCA 2012 is
ruled unconstitutional, void and non est,” the court said and added that the
Contempt of Court Ordinance of 2003 stood revived from the day the COCA
2012 was enforced.
Comments on judiciary’s functioning
As judicial activism touched a new high and the new procedures for the
appointment of judges were put in place the volume of discussion on these
matters also grew. At the same time quite a few authorities abroad offered
comments and recommendations for guaranteeing judicial propriety.
ICJ report
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) released in April its report
on the independence of the judiciary on the basis of the field trip to Pakistan it
had carried out in 2011 (autumn), in which it raised certain questions about
the Supreme Court’s activism.
While Pakistan’s judiciary was independent, it had stepped into areas
29
State of Human Rights in 2012