ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) dismissed a petition seeking contempt of court proceedings against advocate Imaan Mazari for her comments on the judiciary’s handling of blasphemy cases.
A single bench of Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani on Thursday heard the petition filed by Hafiz Ehtisham Ahmed and gave the ruling that the remarks constituted protected speech and did not meet the high legal threshold for “scandalizing the court.”
The petition, filed by Hafiz, sought action under Article 204 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. It alleged that during a speech at the National Press Club on September 27, the respondent claimed that trial court judges in blasphemy cases privately acknowledged a lack of evidence but convicted accused persons and awarded death sentences due to public pressure and fear.
The petitioner supported his case with self-compiled statistics, asserting that in Islamabad courts, 15 out of 16 individuals tried were sentenced to death, and in Rawalpindi, 16 out of 17 convicts received the death penalty.
In his detailed ruling, the IHC judge drew a critical distinction between contempt that involves disobedience of court orders and contempt that involves “scandalization” of the court. The court emphasized that for the latter, the judiciary must exercise “judicial restraint and not be hypersensitive to criticism.”
The court found that the respondent’s statement was a “sweeping” one made in “general terms” and did not single out any specific judge or court by name. The ruling stated, “The statement, even if considered ill-informed or based on incorrect assumptions, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of scandalization.”
The judge also noted that the petition was “bereft of any corroborative material” to prove that the respondent acted with a deliberate intention (mala fide intent) to undermine the judiciary. The remarks were instead characterized as an opinion expressed within the domain of freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.
Citing a precedent from a five-member bench of the IHC, the judgment clarified that for judicial contempt, the act must specifically target a judge or the institution with malicious intent. Since this was not established, the court held that the minimum legal threshold for initiating contempt proceedings was not met.
Consequently, the petition was dismissed “in limine” without issuing a notice to the respondent.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.