Find a Lawyer

(In the matter of show‑cause notices).

Contempt matter, decided on 18th October 1972.

Contempt of Court

‑Newspaper reporter not caring to consult Press Relations Officer nor verifying truth of information passed to him by interested party‑News story published by newspapers entirely baseless‑Publishers, held, guilty of misrepresentation Unqualified expressions of regret and apology having been tendered by publishers respondents, rule discharged, but reporter warned to be careful in future‑Constitution of Pakistan (1972), Art. 206.

Abdus Salam v. The State P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 528 ref.

Yahya Bakhtiar, Attorney‑General for Pakistan for Appellant.

Respondents in person.

Date of hearing :18th October 1972.

On 13‑10‑1972 upon an information laid before this Court by the learned Attorney‑General for Pakistan contempt notices were issued to the respondents, namely, Chief News Editor, Pakistan Press International and the Editors, Printers and Publishers of Pakistan Times, Nawa‑i‑Waqt and Mashriq, asking them to show cause why they should not be proceeded for contempt of Court for having published in Pakistan Times', Nawa‑i‑Waqt' and Daily Mashriq' of the 13th October 1972, a news‑story misrepresenting the proceedings of the Court and thereby tending to prejudice the determination of the matter pending before the Court.

The news story was based upon the Pakistan Press Interna tional report and it stated, inter alia, that a Full Bench of this Court had heard the application and directed the Government concerned to place Mr. Mukhtar Rana in A' Class in Jail and to give him the required medical facilities. It is thus evident, that the Pakistan Press International was mainly responsible for supplying the news story which was published in the different newspapers. It is stated, however, that Nawa‑i‑Waqt had added something of its own.

The learned Attorney‑General stated before us that upon such an application having been served on him he himself approached the Provincial Government and the Government were pleased to accede to his request and to direct that Mr. Mukhtar Rana be placed in A' Class in jail arid lie he given certain medical facilities.

In response to the notices the respondents Nos. 1 and have submitted unqualified apologies and have expressed regrets for having published the aforesaid news story. It has also been stated by respondent No. 1 that the necessary correction was issued on the very next day clarifying the position and expressing sincere regrets for the inadvertent error and it was published by all the prominent Lahore papers on the 14th October 1972.

The particular report of the Pakistan Press International appeared before the Court and stated that he had bona fide sent the report in question on the information supplied by Mr. Mukhtar liana himself. It is indeed regrettable that though the Supreme Court has a Press Relations Officer the reporter never cared to either consult the Officer or to refer to the Rice of the Court to verify the information. This omission betrays a lack of responsibility on the part of the reporter. The news story was indeed entirely baseless.

In a similar case of Abdus Salam v. The State (P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 528) where the newspaper concerned had tried to anticipate the un‑delivered verdict of the Court and had published the verdict as one that had actually been delivered by the Court, this Court held that the Paper was guilty of misrepresentation of the Court's proceedings and the penalty imposed upon the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the Newspaper was maintained. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept the unqualified expressions of regret and apology on the part of the respondents. We, however, warn the reporter concerned to be careful in future.

The rule is accordingly discharged.

Rule discharged.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.