P L D 2009 SC 284
Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art 204–
In fact, it is a conspiracy of highest and gravest nature which has been hateched up by some vested interests, to destroy the whole judicial fabric of this highest judicial institution of this country, for their own interest and purpose. It is being bred so as to get appointed judges of their own choice and interest, in the offices of judges of superior courts, by eliminating out the present judges even whose impartiality and honesty might be above board. This rule of politics, to divide and rule is being played and brought into this realm of judicial institution, so as to cause disturbance into peaceful, harmonious working and smooth running of this Institution, by raising prejudices and differences amongst the Judges, by procreating two factions in the judiciary, which is most harmful and sinful act, plea, stand and stance of the petitioners. All the Judges sitting in this Court are equal, respectful and revered and brother Judges, amongst whom no distrinction and discrimination of belonging to one or the other group can be allowed and permitted by any of the Judges of this Court to be made and raised at this stage and thereafter. All the Judges having taken oath under the present Constitution, a few of them cannot be given preference by the petitioners or theri counsel over or against the others. On this basis, unity amongst the Judges has been attempted to be tarnished and torn into pieces through these baseless, frivolous and unfounded premises particularly when it has already been ruled out by the Seven Hon’ble Judges of this Court in Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan’s case (PLD 2008 SC 178) and thereafter by 17 Judges of this Court in review jurisidction, and the actions taken against the judiciary are to be considered a past and closed transaction. It is worthmentioning that judgment in Taikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan’s case was never disputed or challenged by these petitioners, through any review petition. It does not now lie in their mouth through these petitions to critize the above noted judgment of Tikka Iqbal Muhamamd Khan case, in collateral proceedings, which have got no nexus to the merits of this case, in respect of question of qualification and disqualification of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. Having lost the proper opportunity of disputing the validity and vires of that judgment of Tikka Iqbal Muhammad case (ibid), now the petitiner cannot be permitted to dispute or impugn the vires of the judgment, especially through these applications. The petitioners and their learned counsel have attempted destroy the safe salling of the ship of this great judicial institution. They have tried to make a hole in the ship so as to let it sink. The obnoxious plea raised and stand taken requires to be deprecated by all the prudent men, women including all stake holders interestd to uphold the dignity and independence of this judicial institution and by all the citizens ofPakistan. It is the contempt of serious nature which cannot be forgiven/pardoned by this Court. The petitioners who have sworn affidavits by instructing their learned counsel through the above arguments, addressed by their counsel, do not deserve any leniency shown in the matter of this contumacious and destructive arguments and and the stand taken of bifurcating this institution into two water tight compartments.
Resultantly the petitioners, namely, Mehr Zafar Iqbal and Shakeel Baig, both are mulcted with cost of Rs. 1,00,000 each to be paid/deposited in the office of this Court, within 15 days or to suffer simple imprisonment of three months.
While the learned counsel who have adressed these arguments without considering the reprecussions on the judicial system and institution, on the basis of instructions although imparted to them by their clients, yet they cannot be execused on this plea because it is their primary and prime duty to uphold the dignity, unity and highest respectful image of this judicial institution. This are of advocacy also cannot be approved and appreciated. This Court has noticed with dismay the manner and method of arguments addressed to this Court. As we have got highest regard to the exalted legal profession and to the legal fraternity in general, so we have restricted ourselves to the extent of warning, considering it to be sufficient for them with remarks to be careful in future and not to deviate from the path of augmenting the respect of the Judges and the institution, and not to be entrapped, upon the direction of a client, to address the Court in an abusive language or with the pleas and position harmful to the judicial institutions although that may satisfy the ego of their clientele. It is the cardinal principle that the remarks which are creative of an atmosphere of distrust upon the Judges or on the judicial institution, whether these may be false or true are bound to tumble down the sanctified image of this institution, of requiring highest regard and respect. The mutilation of the face of this institution would loosen the faith, trust and confidence in the mind of the litigants which would be harmful not for this institution but for the legal fraternity as well, as a whole and the destructive consequences would be borne by all the important segments, of the society in future. [p. 307] B