ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday discharged contempt notices against Senator Faisal Vawda and member of the National Assembly Mustafa Kamal over their outburst against the judiciary after they tendered apology and issued show-cause notices to 34 private channels for airing the contemptuous pressers of both lawmakers.

`Both the parliamentarians have realised that the words used were inappropriate and have withdrawn the same and tendered unconditional apology to the apex court,` said an order dictated by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice ofPakistan QaziFaez Isa, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Ageel Ahmed Abbasi.Senator Vawda and MNA Kamal had launched a tirade against the judiciary at separate news conference on May 15.

`In view of their reflection on the matter and tendering of the apology, we withdraw the show-cause notice issued to them,` the SC order stated, while expressing the hope that they would stand by their written statements, as a simple apology would not be acceptable if further transgression was made.

However, the SC did not accept the explanation provided by 26 TV channels through senior counsel Faisal Siddiqui that the live pressers had been broadcast in public interest as it was their duty under Article 19 and 19A of the Constitution. The lawyer argued that the channels did not commit any contempt of court by broadcasting the news conferences. The bench found the explanation `unjustifiable` and decided to issue show-cause notices to all the channels, including those which had not responded to the notices, to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.

The order noted that no retraction orapology was tendered by the channels which had broadcast the news conferences, re-broadcast them or re-telecast their portions.

The SC, however, ignored when Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan pointed out a recent scandalous and derogatory presser by PTI leader Raoof Hasan against the CJP and Islamabad High Court chief justice Amir Farooq. The CJP simply said he was interested only when his person was targeted, also explaining that the present case was initiated on the request of a fellow judge.

During the hearing, the AGP explained why the media should exercise responsibility while relaying `contemptuous` material since people were forming their opinion on the basis of what they heard on the media.

In a polarised society, there was a likelihood that a large section of society might form an opinion and accept such information as truth, the AGP asserted, adding since the media was a commercial entity, it was important to exercise responsibility by `balancing between personal interest and the larger interest`.At the hearing, the CJP observed that the court was cognisant about media freedom.

`But media abuse is not media freedom, Justice 1sa remarked, also regretting that it seemed the electronic media had gone into competition with the uncontrolled social media for ratings.

Earlier when senior counsel Siddiqui furnished the preliminary reply on behalf of 26 TV channels, the court noted that the documents were not signed by the channel representatives.

The court said it had considered the contents of the reply in which the counsel had contended that they could only be proceeded against if `mal-intent` was established. However, it recalled, the counsel had alsoconcededthatthe contentsofone ofthe press conferences, which the channels aired, prima facie constituted contempt.

While putting the channels on notice, the court observed that being commercial enterprises they made money through broadcast, therefore each reply should also mention if the pressers were preceded by advertisement, the number thereof and the amount earned from them and the sameupon conclusion of the pressers. The reply should also stipulate number of times the press conference any material therefrom was broadcast and the amounts earned in respect of advertisement revenue, the order stated.

Each reply should be signed by channel owner and chief executive or by whatever name they are called or the larger shareholders, the order mentioned, while clarifying that the notices were person specific.

The replies have to be submitted within two weeks. The order noted that both Articles 19 and 19A were most important fundamental rights in the Constitution, which also make it clear that there is no absolute freedom of press. Article 204 prohibits contempt of the court and empowers the SC and the high court to initiate contempt of court proceedings in terms thereof Article 204(2)(b)(c)(d). The law enacted pursuant to Article 204 was Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 and has received constitutional cover under Article 270AA of the Constitution, which provides how power of the court with regard to the contempt of court has to be attended to.