IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 
 
 
Criminal Original Petition No. 154 OF 2017 
in 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 985 of 2017 
in 
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2939 of 2017 
in 
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, etc. 
(Contempt proceedings against Senator Nehal Hashmi on the basis 
of the speech made by him on 28.05.2017) 
 
 
For the Prosecution: 
Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Attorney-General for 
Pakistan/Prosecutor 
 
For the Respondent: 
Mr. Kamran Murtaza, ASC  
with the respondent in person 
 
Dates of hearing: 
01.06.2017, 
05.06.2017, 
16.06.2017, 
23.06.2017, 
10.07.2017, 
24.07.2017, 
13.09.2017  &  24.01.2018 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: If the Judges of this Court 
were weaklings or feeble at heart and if they could be frightened or 
browbeaten by verbal assaults or naked threats then the 
respondent namely Senator Nehal Hashmi had surely made a 
valiant attempt at that. It, however, appears that he and those he 
wanted to obey or please are poor judges of men. On 20.04.2017 
two Members of the Larger Bench of this Court hearing the case of 
Criminal Original Petition No. 154 of 2017 
2
Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Prime 
Minister of Pakistan / Member National Assembly, Prime Minister’s 
House, Islamabad and nine others (PLD 2017 SC 265), popularly 
known as the Panama Papers case, declared the head of the 
respondent’s political party (the then serving Prime Minister of 
Pakistan) disqualified to be elected to or remain a member of the 
Majlis-e-Shoora 
(Parliament) 
under 
Article 
62(1)(f) 
of 
the 
Constitution and ordered his criminal prosecution by the National 
Accountability Bureau before an Accountability Court. Some 
others very closely related to or connected with him were also 
ordered to face similar prosecution. On that occasion the other 
three Members of that Larger Bench decided to get some 
investigation conducted into the allegations of corruption and 
corrupt practices leveled against him and others through a Joint 
Investigation Team (JIT). During the pendency of that investigation 
the respondent addressed a meeting of the workers of his political 
party at the Muslim League House, KDA Scheme No. 1, Karsaz 
Road, Karachi on 28.05.2017 and in his speech he launched an 
all-out verbal assault upon the Members of the Larger Bench of 
this Court as well as the members of the Joint Investigation Team 
and such assault included serious threats not only to them but 
also to their families and children which threats could not by any 
stretch of imagination or construction be termed as veiled. An 
extract from that speech made by the respondent on that occasion 
is reproduced below:  
 
"
 � �� زا� � � � � �� زا� � ہو ، � �ر � � � ب� � ! � � روا � ،�او � ب� � �ر�
 � � �ڑ� � � � � � ل� ن� � �ر � � روا � � ب� � � ں�۔� �د � ب� ِ م� ار�
  ،� � �د � � �ز � ن�� � نا�� ےر� � ں� ےر� � ؤ� � ��ر � � سو� �� جآ  �
 � �� � روا  ۔ � ےد � � � م� ��� ،� �ر � � �ر ہ�ز � �� زا� ،راد�� ،�� � ن��
 � � � �� � ۔� � � ��� ىد� � � � � � ن� � � � � نؤ� لڈ� � تر� � �او �ر �
� �� � � � �۔� ےد � � �ز � � ےر� م� � روا ۔� � � ں� � � � ۔� � "   
 
That speech of the respondent was repeatedly telecast on various 
national television channels and the same received wide national 
and international publicity.  
Criminal Original Petition No. 154 of 2017 
3
 
2. 
The Registrar of this Court brought the matter to the notice 
of the Hon’ble Chief Justice on 31.05.2017 and his lordship was 
pleased to order on the same day that the matter may be placed 
before the Hon’ble Members of the Implementation Bench seized of 
the issues on the basis of the order passed by the Larger Bench on 
20.04.2017. On that very day, i.e. 31.05.2017 the Hon’ble 
Members of the Implementation Bench unanimously ordered a 
notice to be issued to the respondent to appear before the Court in 
person on 01.06.2017 and to show cause why proceedings for 
committing contempt of Court might not be initiated against him. 
A notice was also ordered to be issued to the learned Attorney-
General for Pakistan in that regard.  
 
3. 
On 01.06.2017 the respondent appeared before this Court in 
person and upon his request he was allowed three days’ time to file 
his reply to the show cause notice. On that date the learned 
Attorney-General for Pakistan was appointed as the Prosecutor 
and was directed to collect and place on the record all the 
necessary material. On 05.06.2017 the respondent’s request for 
some more time for filing his reply to the show cause notice was 
acceded to and he was directed to submit the requisite reply within 
the extended time positively. On 16.06.2017 the respondent was 
allowed some more time to file his reply to the show cause notice 
because he had expressed his inability to do the needful without 
going through the transcript of his relevant speech which was not 
available with him. On that date of hearing a copy of the transcript 
of his relevant speech was supplied to the respondent by the 
learned Attorney-General within the view of the Court. On 
20.06.2017 a reply to the show cause notice was filed by the 
respondent through Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1150 
of 2017 and in his reply he contested issuance of the said notice 
and called for its withdrawal. On 23.06.2017 the respondent 
absented from the Court without any prior permission but the 
reply to the show cause notice submitted by him was perused by 
the Court with the assistance of the learned counsel for the 
Criminal Original Petition No. 154 of 2017 
4
respondent and the learned Attorney-General and they were also 
heard on the issue. After the said preliminary hearing and having 
remained dissatisfied with the respondent’s reply the matter was 
adjourned by the Court to 10.07.2017 for framing of the Charge 
against the respondent. On 07.07.2017 the respondent filed a 
‘Further Reply’ to the show cause notice through Criminal 
Miscellaneous Application No. 1202 of 2017 without seeking any 
permission from the Court in that regard and towards the end of 
the said reply he submitted in paragraph No. 21 as follows: 
 
“That I am innocent law obeying citizen, member of Senate of 
Pakistan and Senior Lawyer thus cannot even imagine to commit 
any act intentionally or willfully which can be taken as against 
the Judiciary. I say during 30 years of legal practice on entering 
Court room, the Answering Respondent always paid respect by 
bowing because the courts. As a lawyer saying sorry before the 
court is honor itself, therefore, if this Hon. Court points out any 
fault I will tender unqualified and unconditional apology forthwith 
in the honor of Bench and Bar. I say neither I interfered nor 
obstruct in the court process intentionally or willfully.” 
   
On 10.07.2017 the respondent was in attendance along with his 
learned counsel and a Charge was framed against the respondent 
to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. The Charge 
framed against the respondent reads as follows: 
 
CHARGE 
 
 
That you Nihal Hashmi son of Sagheer ud Din Hashmi on 
28.05.2017 while addressing a public gathering in Muslim League 
House, Karachi delivered a speech in which you uttered in 
following words:- 
 
"ب� � �او !� ار� �م ِ�ب� � د� � ۔ں� � � ب� � � روا � � �ر � ن� ل� � � � � � 
�ڑ� � � � ۔جآ �� سو� � � ر�ڈ� � ؤ� � ۔ےر� ں� �، ےر� نا�� � ن�� � �ز � � 
د� � � ۔۔۔  
 
�ں � �ز� ہو � � ےرادا � ں� � �آ � �آ لاڈ � � �ر ں� ڑ�� � � �"۔ 
  
 
That by way of the aforesaid speech you threatened 
Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan their families and 
children and Members of the JIT and their families and children; 
 
 
Criminal Original Petition No. 154 of 2017 
5
That your above mentioned act tends to scandalize the 
Court and bring the authority of the Court into hatred, ridicule, 
disrespect and you thereby obstructed, interfered with and 
prejudiced the process of law and due course of proceedings of 
the Supreme Court of Pakistan and by doing so have committed 
Contempt of the Supreme Court of Pakistan within the meanings 
of Article 204(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan read with Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 
2003 (Ordinance V of 2003) (“the Ordinance”) Punishable under 
Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 which is 
cognizable by this Court; 
 
 
 
We thus proceed to try you on the above charge.  
 
Islamabad. 
July, 10th, 2017. 
 
On that date the learned Attorney-General was put on notice and 
was required to conduct the proceedings on behalf of the 
prosecution and to file all the relevant documents including a list 
of witnesses for the prosecution. The respondent was also directed 
to file all the documents on which he wanted to place reliance and 
also to file his list of witnesses. The office of this Court was 
directed to register the matter as a Criminal Original Petition and 
to fix the same for hearing on 24.07.2017. On 22.07.2017 the 
respondent filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1311 of 
2017 seeking permission to file a written statement, to adduce 
evidence in his defence and to appear as his own witness for 
making a statement on oath.  
 
4. 
On 24.07.2017 the statement of Haji Adam, Director-
General, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) 
was recorded as CW1 and he produced a Compact Disc containing 
recording of the relevant speech of the respondent as Exhibit-
CW1/1, transcript of the relevant speech of the respondent as 
Exhibits-CW1/2 to CW1/5 and a list of television channels which 
had aired parts of the relevant speech of the respondent on 
31.05.2017 and 01.06.2017 as Exhibits-CW1/6 and CW1/7. On 
the same date the learned Attorney-General placed on the record a 
Criminal Original Petition No. 154 of 2017 
6
copy of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1150 of 2017 along 
with its annexures as Exhibit-P/1 and then he closed the 
prosecution’s evidence. On that date a request made by the learned 
counsel for the respondent for permission to add to the reply to the 
show cause notice already submitted by the respondent was 
allowed by the Court and the respondent was permitted to do the 
same within the next two weeks and also to file a list of his 
witnesses within the said period. On 16.08.2017 the respondent 
filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1499 of 2017 
containing a ‘Statement’ of the respondent as well a list of his 
witnesses and in paragraph No. 7(xiv) of that ‘Statement’ the 
respondent stated as follows: 
 
“I say that if this Honourable Court points out any word which 
tantamount to contempt of this Honourable Court I shall feel no 
hesitation to tender an unconditional apology and will throw 
myself at the mercy of this Hon’ble Court without any delay as 
already stated in further reply.” 
 
5. 
On the next date of hearing, i.e. 13.09.2017 the learned 
Advocate-on-Record for the respondent sought an adjournment 
which was granted because the learned counsel for the respondent 
could not appear and the learned Attorney-General was abroad in 
connection with some professional engagements. On the next date 
of hearing, i.e. 24.01.2018 a statement captioned as ‘Unconditional 
Apology’ and signed by the respondent as well as his learned 
counsel was filed before the Court through Criminal Miscellaneous 
Application No. 67 of 2018 and the operative part of the same 
reads as follows: 
 
“Humbly Sheweth:- 
1. 
That the above noted proceeding is pending before this 
Hon’ble Court and fixed for today i.e 24.01.2018. 
2. 
That through the accused-respondent initially contested 
the contempt proceeding but he has now decided that not to 
contest the same any more as the respect of the Court and the 
orders passed by it are above from everything, hence in the 
circumstance he tender his unconditional apology & place him at 
the mercy of this Hon’ble Court.” 
 
Criminal Original Petition No. 154 of 2017 
7
This Court passed the following order on that date: 
 
“The respondent has tendered an unconditional apology and has 
placed himself at the mercy of the Court. The learned counsel for 
the respondent has submitted that the respondent does not want 
to contest these proceedings.  
2. 
The judgment in the matter is reserved and the same shall 
be announced in due course.” 
 
6. 
As the respondent has decided not to contest these 
proceedings and has submitted an unconditional apology, 
therefore, the first question to be answered is as to whether he has 
committed contempt of this Court or not. Through the relevant 
speech made by him on 28.05.2017 the respondent had 
established that he is a firebrand speaker and the tone, the pitch 
and the delivery of the offending words bear an ample testimony to 
that but unfortunately on that day he had spewed fire towards a 
wrong direction. He attacked the judiciary, the judges and those 
who were tasked by this Court to investigate some allegations of 
criminal conduct on the part of the respondent’s political leader, 
his family and others. He launched a verbal tirade and issued 
naked threats which he now himself realizes to be improper, 
unwise and imprudent. The offending words uttered by the 
respondent in the relevant speech, which words are admitted and 
not denied by him, were nothing but an effort to obstruct, interfere 
with and prejudice the proceedings pending before this Court and 
before the Joint Investigation Team working under the direct 
command and supervision of this Court in the Panama Papers 
case. In this Court’s order dated 05.05.2017 passed in Civil 
Miscellaneous Application No. 2939 of 2017 in Constitution 
Petition No. 29 of 2016 it had clearly been observed that “As the 
JIT, in essence and substance, is acting on the direction of the 
Supreme Court of Pakistan, all the Executive Authorities 
throughout Pakistan shall act in aid of the JIT.” Again in the same 
matter this Court had clarified and directed on 11.05.2017 that 
“during the course of investigation all the Members of JIT shall be 
deemed to be under the Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan who 
shall for all intents and purposes be the Competent Authority for 
the JIT.” It is not open to any manner of doubt that the offending 
Criminal Original Petition No. 154 of 2017 
8
words uttered by the respondent in public were meant to interfere 
with, obstruct and prejudice the process of law, justice and this 
Court and were also intended to bring the authority of this Court 
and administration of law into disrespect, disrepute or hatred 
within the meanings of section 3 of the Contempt of Court 
Ordinance, 2003 (Ordinance No. V of 2003) and Article 204 of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The 
manner in which the respondent had acted on the occasion was 
surely prejudicial to the integrity and independence of the judiciary 
of Pakistan as a whole as it had defamed and brought it into 
ridicule. While adverting to the provisions of section 18 of the 
Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 (Ordinance No. V of 2003) we 
have felt satisfied that the contempt committed by the respondent 
is quite grave and is one which is substantially detrimental to the 
administration of justice besides tending to bring this Court and 
the Judges of this Court into disrespect and hatred. Section 5(2) of 
the said Ordinance dealing with submission of an apology by a 
person accused of having committed contempt of court does not 
envisage an automatic acceptance of the apology by the court but 
makes its acceptance subject to the court’s satisfaction about its 
bona fide. The apology tendered by the respondent on 24.01.2018 
itself mentioned that initially the respondent had contested the 
proceedings and the same is also evident from his reply to the 
show cause notice dated 20.06.2017, his ‘Further Reply’ dated 
07.07.2017 and his ‘Statement’ dated 16.08.2017. The belated 
apology submitted by the respondent after about seven months of 
commencement of these proceedings and at the fag end of such 
proceedings when the evidence of the prosecution has already been 
completely recorded and closed speaks volumes about the apology 
being an afterthought. The conduct of the respondent in this 
regard impinges upon bona fide of his apology and, thus, the same 
has not been found to be meriting acceptance. Such apology of the 
respondent may, however, have some bearing upon the sentence to 
be passed against him. In view of what has been observed above 
the respondent is held guilty of committing contempt of this Court 
as charged. 
 
Criminal Original Petition No. 154 of 2017 
9
7. 
The next question to be considered is about the sentence to 
be passed against the respondent. Although the offending words 
publically uttered by the respondent, which words had received 
wide publicity nationally as well internationally, amounted to a 
grave contempt of this Court yet there are some mitigating 
circumstances available warranting withholding the maximum 
sentence provided for the offence by the law. The respondent is 
about sixty years of age, he is an Advocate for the last about thirty 
years, he has submitted an unconditional apology though 
belatedly, he has thrown himself at the mercy of the Court and has 
decided not to contest these proceedings and upon his conviction 
for the offence of contempt of court he is to be visited with a 
disqualification under Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution. 
 
8. 
For what has been discussed above the respondent is 
convicted for the offence under section 3 of the Contempt of Court 
Ordinance, 2003 (Ordinance No. V of 2003) read with Article 204(2) 
of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and is 
sentenced under section 5(1) of the said Ordinance to simple 
imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees 
fifty thousand only) or in default of payment thereof to undergo 
simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days. He is to be 
taken into custody and he shall be lodged in the Central Prison, 
Rawalpindi for serving his sentence.  
 
9. 
As the respondent has been convicted and sentenced by this 
Court for acting in a manner prejudicial to the integrity and 
independence of the judiciary of Pakistan and for defaming and 
bringing the judiciary into ridicule, therefore, by virtue of the law 
declared by this Court in the case of Muhammad Azhar Siddique 
and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2012 SC 774) 
with reference to Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973 he ipso facto stands disqualified from 
being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the 
Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) for a period of five years from today. 
Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Election Commission of 
Criminal Original Petition No. 154 of 2017 
10
Pakistan for an immediate appropriate action in that respect.              
 
 
 
 
(Asif Saeed Khan Khosa) 
Judge 
 
 
For 
reasons 
purely 
personal 
I 
abstain from recording any opinion. 
 
 
 
(Dost Muhammad Khan) 
Judge 
 
 
I agree with my learned brother Asif 
Saeed Khan Khosa, J. 
 
 
 
(Sajjad Ali Shah) 
Judge 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 
 
 
With a consensus of two Members of the Bench and with one 
Member of the Bench (Dost Muhammad Khan, J.) abstaining 
Senator Nehal Hashmi respondent is convicted for the offence 
under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 
(Ordinance No. V of 2003) read with Article 204(2) of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and is 
sentenced under section 5(1) of the said Ordinance to simple 
imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees 
fifty thousand only) or in default of payment thereof to undergo 
simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days. He is to be 
taken into custody and he shall be lodged in the Central Prison, 
Rawalpindi for serving his sentence.  
 
Criminal Original Petition No. 154 of 2017 
11
As the respondent has been convicted and sentenced by this 
Court for acting in a manner prejudicial to the integrity and 
independence of the judiciary of Pakistan and for defaming and 
bringing the judiciary into ridicule, therefore, by virtue of the law 
declared by this Court in the case of Muhammad Azhar Siddique 
and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2012 SC 774) 
with reference to Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973 he ipso facto stands disqualified from 
being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the 
Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) for a period of five years from today. 
Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Election Commission of 
Pakistan for an immediate appropriate action in that respect. 
 
 
(Asif Saeed Khan Khosa) 
Judge 
 
 
 
(Dost Muhammad Khan) 
Judge 
 
 
 
 (Sajjad Ali Shah) 
Judge 
 
Announced in open Court at Islamabad on 01.02.2018. 
 
 
(Asif Saeed Khan Khosa) 
Judge 
 
Islamabad. 
01.02.2018 
Approved for reporting. 
Arif 
 
