BAZ MUHAMMAD KAKAR versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, ISLAMABAD
Constitutional petitions, predictions and sections 3, 4 (4), 10 (b) of the Constitution of Pakistan, Articles 204, 248, 4, 9, 10A, 14, 19, 25, 68 under Article 184 (3) of Islam 184 (3) Applicants questioning the constitutional status of contempt of court Act, 2012, claim that the Supreme Court Act, 2012, violated the Articles 9, 14, 19 and 25 of the Constitution. It says the Act is equivalent to denial of access to justice under Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution because it created a distinction between office bearers and general contenders, with the exception of public officials. Accordingly, there was discrimination in the nature of the Act and the violation of Article 25 of the Constitution states that the Federal Government (defendants) held that the requests were not made secure because the infringement of any of the basic rights of the applicant. Was not done because Article 184 (3) of the Constitution was unable to maintain litigation because of the imposition of The questions of public importance included the fundamental rights of the contempt of court Act, 2012, Section 3, which was in contravention of Articles 4, 9, 25 and 204 (2) of the Constitution because of section 3 ( 1) Has immunity. Public officials are referred to contempt of court in Article 248 (1) of the Constitution, which was a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution under A rticle204 (2), the court may, without exception to any person, insult it. Was given the power to punish. Article 248 (1) of the Constitution did not exempt any public official from any criminal proceedings, therefore, by section 3 (1) of the contempt of court Act, 2012, public officials were required to comply with Article 25 of the Constitution. Violator
