TEAM CODE: SC-012 R

INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, IIUI 2025

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE DIVISIONAL BENCH OF PANJNAD

HIGH COURT PANJNAD

(Division Bench)

STATE (Petitioner)

VS.

ADVOCATE TARIQ MEHMOOD QURESHI (Respondent)

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBERIVIATIONS ....................................................................................... 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................ 9

ISSUES PRESENTED ................................................................................................... 10

11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS....................................................................................

14
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS.......................................................................................

ISSUE I …………………………………………………………………………..….. 14

ISSUE II…………………………………………………………………………..…. 16
3
ISSUE III ………………………………………………………………………….... 17

ISSUE IV ………………………………………………………………………….... 19

PRAYER ……………………………………………………………… 21

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

[Link] ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

1 UDHR Universal Declaration Of Human

Rights
2 ICCPR International Covenent On Civil and
Political Rights

3 SC Supreme Court

4 SCMR Supreme Court Of Pakistan

5 UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for

Refugees

6 UN
United Nations
7 PLD Pakistan Law Digest

8 SCMR Supreme Court Monthly Review

9 YLR Yearly Law Report

10 MLD Monthly Law Digest

11 PCrLJ Pakistan Criminal Law Journal

5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAWS

PLD 2011 SC 407

PLD 2016 Sindh 618
2008 SCMR 1541
PLD 2007 Lahore 560
2001 MLD 1735 Lahore
1996 PCRLJ 1731 Lahore
1985 PCRLJ 2815 LAH
1981 PCRL 382 Karachi
1977 PLD 456 Lahore

LAW/STATUTES

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

• Article 10-A – Right to fair trial
• Article 14 – Inviolability of dignity of man
• Article 19 – Freedom of speech
• Article 204 – Contempt of Court
• Article 175 – Establishment and jurisdiction of courts
• Article 209 – Supreme Judicial Council (related to misconduct of judges)
• Article 184(3) – Original jurisdiction of Supreme Court
• Article 248 – Immunity of President, Governors, etc.
• Article 70 – Legislative procedure
• Article 89 – Ordinance making power
Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003
• Section 3 – Contempt definition
• Section 4 – Fair criticism not contempt
• Section 5 – Defence in good faith
• Section 10 – Punishment
6
• Section 11 – Apology provisions
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
• Section 124-A – Sedition (referenced contextually)
• Section 500 – Defamation (contextually discussed)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
• Section 476 – Procedure in contempt cases
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
• Article 70 – Privileged communications (referred briefly)

INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND CONVENTIONS

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

• Article 10 – Right to fair and public hearing
• Article 19 – Freedom of opinion and expression
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
• Article 14 – Fair trial guarantees
• Article 19 – Freedom of expression
• Article 17 – Privacy, family, honor, and reputation
Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the ICCPR
• Used to support proportionality and necessity arguments in restrictions on rights
UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers
• Principle 16 – Lawyers must not be identified with their clients’ causes
• Principle 18 – Lawyers must not be harassed for lawful professional activities
Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to
Information
• Principle 6 – Expression may only be restricted when strictly necessary
Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct
Referenced for accountability and impartiality of judges.
7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On 15.05.2024, at approximately 2:00 p.m., Mr. Zafar Iqbal, Additional Prosecutor

General, Panjnad, violated the Court decorum. The Court proceedings were in
progress, he disturbed the Court, discussing things with another advocate while
exchanging a book. The Judge directed him to maintain the Court decorum and to
refrain from such disruptive conduct. Further, the proceedings were adjourned for a
short while, and the Judge went to his chamber. After the Court was adjourned,
Advocate Tariq Mehmood Qureshi (the respondent), who was present in the court
room for his own case, raised objections on the conduct of the Judge, saying he
insulted the lawyers’ fraternity. He began shouting in the Courtroom, pronouncing
harsh remarks against the Judge. Moreover, he invited the fellow advocates to
challenge the Court’s authority and file a reference against the said Judge.
2. Despite repeated instructions from the Court staff to maintain order, the respondent
persisted with his shouting and disruptive conduct. He also made a video recording
of his actions with his cell phone and made it viral on social media. The Court called
the respondent to meet the Judge in his chamber to de-escalate the situation.
However, the respondent simply refused to meet the Judge, saying we do not meet
such rubbish persons, and continued to express his fury on the Judge’s conduct.
Eventually, the Judge passed an order in the open court, while recording the
contemptuous statements of the respondent.
3. A reference was filed by the Judge, Mr. Justice Aslam Rehman for initiating a further
contempt of court proceedings against the respondent. He was accused under sections
3 & 11 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 read with Article 204 of the
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, punishable under section 5 of the ordinance. It was
also mentioned in the reference that the respondent had been previously involved in
numerous contempt proceedings. He had even tendered an unconditional apology in
the courts and promised to remain careful in the future.
4. The reference was supported by affidavits from three Court staff witnesses who were
present at the time of the incident, attested copies of previous orders, and a USB
containing the video of the incident. A letter from the Vice Chairman of the Punjnad
Bar Council was also attached which showed that the respondent’s license had
already been suspended by the Disciplinary Committee. After reviewing the
reference and supporting material, this Court issued a show-cause notice to the
respondent on 20.05.2024, asking why this contempt proceeding should not be
initiated. Mr. Qureshi was also directed to appear in person before this Court on
22.05.2024.
5. The respondent did not follow the said court order to appear in this Court.
Consequently, bailable warrants for his arrest in the sum of Rs. 500,000 were issued
on 22.05.2024. He was arrested by the police and brought before this Court on
23.05.2024, where he confirmed receipt of the show-cause notice. On 24.05.2024,
charge was framed against the respondent for contempt of Court. The respondent
8
pleaded not guilty and requested to cross-examine the witnesses who had provided
affidavits against him.
6. The three witnesses (Hassan Ali, Additional Registrar, Muhammad Usman, Court
Associate, and Bilal Ahmed, Office Attendant) provided their testimony in Court on
27.05.2024. They consistently supported the allegations against the respondent, and
their evidence proved unimpeachable during cross-examination. Additionally, this
Court reviewed various documentary evidence, including affidavits, court orders, a
USB of the video, and correspondence from the Punjnad Bar Council regarding the
respondent's suspended license. The respondent was also provided copies of these
documents for cross-examination.
7. The Prosecutor General argued that the respondent had wilfully committed contempt
of Court, undermined its authority, and caused harm to the public trust in the legal
system. The respondent’s previous history of misconduct, including his repeated
involvement in criminal cases and the suspension of his license, was also highlighted.
8. Whereas the respondent’s counsel contended that the Judge was not present in the
Courtroom when the alleged incident occurred, and that the respondent never
intended to commit wilful contempt. Whatever he expressed comes under his
fundamental right to freedom of speech. He also claimed that the witnesses were
related witnesses, hence, their evidence was biased and unreliable. The respondent
sought to rely on his acquittal in prior criminal cases and requested leniency, even
offering to tender his gracious apology, if it pleased the court.
9

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan is thereby brought under its
jurisdiction in the present case in relation to Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with Article 204 and the Contempt of Court Ordinance,
2003, under suo motu powers. The Respondent represents a corresponding submission to the
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court while raising concerns regarding the procedural safeguards
such as the principles of natural justice governing the lawful exercise of such jurisdiction.
10

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I

Whether the conduct of the respondent, is sufficient to constitute contempt of court under
Sections 3 and 11 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003?

ISSUE II

Whether the respondent’s claim of lacking intent to commit contempt, coupled with his offer to
tender an apology, can be considered as mitigating circumstances under Section 18 of the
Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003?

ISSUE III
Whether the Court has the authority, under the principles of natural justice, to initiate such Suo
motu contempt proceedings against an advocate, even in the absence of a formal complaint?
ISSUE IV
1. What are the legal consequences of recording and disseminating court proceedings
without authorization, and does the right to free speech extend to such acts in a courtroom
setting?
11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE NO. 1
According to the Respondent, his statements- which were made in legal argument in a judicial
process- do not fulfill the threshold requirement for contempt under Sections 3 and 11 of the
Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. His comments, according to him, were neither scandalous
nor intended to impede the administration of justice.

For the offense of contempt as it relates to considerations of law, there would be a clear intention
and a real prospect of interference in judicial proceedings. The conduct of the Respondent, when
seen in entirety and without edits, reflects rather a criticism of the profession than contemptuous
action.

In the absence of any illegal recording or illicit distribution, the Respondent could not be found
participating in any act that would breach contempt and this is the source of the public outcry
for which he is now being scrutinized: the unauthorized recording or distribution of the court
sessions concerned, which was the main basis for all the controversy. Liability for contempt
cannot be extended to the acts of unknown third parties for which the Respondent has received
no benefits.

In light of these facts and the protective ambit of Article 19 of the Constitution, the Respondent
asserts with utmost respect that his conduct cannot subsume the definition of contempt of court
as set by the law..

ISSUE NO. 2

The Respondent submits that he did not intend for contempt to arise from anything he stated, but that
such statements were made only bona fide in the course of his professional duties. Intent is an
extremely important element in contempt law, and in its absence, the offense claimed to have been
committed is reduced in seriousness.
12
Subsection (iv) of Section 18 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 hints at other factors that the
Court would consider as mitigating factors; absence of intent, and bona fide tender of apology. The
Respondent is willing to make a pure, unconditional tender of apology, which manifests his respect
towards the judiciary and recognizes the injury done to the Court.

As a precedent holds, courts have refrained from imposing penalty in such a case where an advocate
has, after such 'revolution', shown repentance and there are otherwise no indications of his intended
affront to judicial authority. The present case of the Respondent merits same leniency.

Therefore, the Respondent prays for consideration of mitigation of his actions but not any further
negative consequences.

ISSUE NO. 3

The Respondent acknowledges the Supreme Court's authority to initiate suo motu proceedings
under Article 204 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003,
but respectfully submits that such authority should be exercised in accordance with the
principles of natural justice, especially the right to a fair hearing and the absence of bias.

The fact that suo motu jurisdiction is recognized in the Constitution does not mean it should
override due process safeguards protecting individual rights. The absence of a formal complaint
denies the Respondent an opportunity to understand the allegations in a structured legal process
that can lead to prejudice.

It is a settled principle in constitutional jurisprudence that even where courts act on their own
motion, such discretion must be tempered by procedural fairness. Courts in Pakistan, and
comparable jurisdictions, have emphasized the need for restraint and transparency in initiating
contempt actions.

Thus, the Respondent puts forward that while the Court may act suo motu, exercise of this power
in this case-without prior inquiry or complaint-would risk compromising the fairness and
impartiality referred to as being owed to the accused persons under constitutional and legal
norms..
13
ISSUE NO. 4

The respondent respectfully states that he has neither recorded nor disseminated court
proceedings, nor has he ever authorized, or encouraged such act; hence, he is incapable of being
legally liable for the unauthorized action of third parties.

Even if the unauthorized recording and distribution of courtroom proceedings are illegal, to
charge such an incidence to an advocate without demonstration of direct involvement
undermines the tenet of individual culpability. The Respondent's activity confined itself solely
to the courthouse for advocacy but never to any dissemination of media.

In addition, Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees fair comment on judicial

conduct within limits that would not obstruct justice by free speech. The utterances of the
Respondent while in court may thus, during legal argument, fall within this purview, and they
should not be deemed contemptuous merely because they end up distorted in the media
thereafter.

Thus, it will not only be exceeding the limits of personal responsibility by making the
Respondent liable for third-party recordings, but also jeopardizing the constitutional co-balance
between the judicial authority and free speech.
14

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I

Whether the conduct of the respondent, is sufficient to constitute contempt of court under
Sections 3 and 11 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003?

1. Not Willful Intention to Defame the Court

Under Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003, contempt implies actions that
scandalize the court or lower its authority. The Respondent, therefore, submits that the
statements, in the context of legal proceedings, do not have any malicious intent or direct
attack against the judiciary. As held in State v. Aziz-ul-Haq, intent and context are both
necessary to determine whether a conduct is contemptuous.

2. Professional Critique Is Not Contempt

The statements attributed to the Respondent are nothing but fair comments on judicial
procedure made during an emotionally charged bail hearing. Courts in Pakistan have
acknowledged that reasonable expressions of concern or disagreement - particularly, when
voiced by an advocate in court - does not amount to contempt (PLD 2013 SC 829). Legal
criticism, even if harsh, should never equate to obstructing justice.

3. Section 11 Requires Actual Interruption, and Not Hypothetical Damage

Section 11 deals only in interference with judicial proceedings. Nowhere does it show that any
of the remarks made by the Respondent really caused a disruption in or had any bearing upon
the outcome of any case. In Suo Motu Case No. 4 of 2010, the Supreme Court stated:
interference should be considered to be "real and substantial" for those purposes. Mere verbal
expression of concern - especially in the absence of any misconduct - would not suffice.

4. Lack of An Explicit Link with Recording or Dissemination

15
The primary concern of the Court centered on the recording and circulation of proceedings. The
Respondent did neither record the proceedings nor have anyone do so on his behalf. Substituting
a personal liability for contempt against the Respondent for the acts of third parties would be
against the principle of personal liability that contempt law recognizes (PLD 2012 SC 664).

5. An Attempt to Preserve Judicial Dignity Should Not Restrict the Right to a Fair
Argument

The administration of justice deserves respect; it must also withstand reasonable scrutiny.
Advocates must be free to argue vigorously and, when necessary, to criticize. In the absence of
any contemptuous intent, to penalize the Respondent would operate as a serious chill to
courtroom advocacy and an impairment to the independence of the profession itself.

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

This guarantees the freedom of expression; the respondent may argue that such conduct falls
within legitimate expression and was not intended to obstruct justice.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

That guarantees the right to have one's opinions and express them freely, which supports her
claim that she exercised free speech.

ON THE ROLE OF LAWYERS IN SOCIETY AS CONTAINED IN THE UN BASIC

PRINCIPLES (1990)
16
This speaks about how lawyers should be entitled to freedom of expression as well as their
responsibilities in terms of upholding justice. It does exclude clear abuse in the list

ISSUE II

Whether the respondent’s claim of lacking intent to commit contempt, coupled with his
offer to tender an apology, can be considered as mitigating circumstances under Section
18 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003?

1. Absence of Mens Rea Bars Liability in Contempt

The law of contempt as an offence mandates that the act must be willful or deliberate. The
Respondent never thought to scandalize the Court or hamper justice. Courts in Pakistan have
consistently recognized that mens rea is a relevant aspect to consider in fixing culpability in
contempt cases .

2. Section 18 Vests the Court with Power to Query Culpable Circumstances

Under Section 18, the Court has the authority to discharge or remit punishment if the accused admits
that contrition exists. The Respondent's willingness to make an unqualified apology amounts to a
genuine expression of respect for the judiciary. An apology was accepted in the Contempt
Proceedings Against Imran Khan case because the statements were without malice and quickly
clarified.

3. Conduct Legitimate in Nature Within Legal Argumentation

The comments made by the Respondent occurred within a robust exchange of ideas in court while
representing a client. The very context, and not any disrespect toward the Court, elucidates the
Respondent's modality and content. The Court holds that such fair argumentation may constitute
contempt, but it has done so relatively seldom, and certainly not in cases where a party is earning his
living.
4. Apology Signals Pledge to Respect the Institution
In any case, an apology by an advocate should serve as a symbol of legitimate professional
integrity; thus it was not demanded. The Respondent has never shown any pattern of disrespect or
defiance. His immediate willingness to express remorse indicates that he views the dignity of the
court with high regard and that he has respect for the professional code of ethics.

5. Too Much Punishment Would Offend Proportionality

17
A sanction here would retaliate against the Respondent for having a clean record, for not having
intended to cause any offense, and for quickly tendering an apology. In such case, justice and equity
demand that the court restrain its contempt jurisdiction, while Article 10A of the Constitution
mandates compliance with due process and allows for taking it easy in these circumstances.
ICCPR, Article 14(1)

Right to a fair trial entails presumption of innocence and consideration of mitigating factors.

UDHR, Article 10

Concerned with providing a fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal; applicable to hearing in
the context of the respondent's apology and lack of intent.

UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990)

Acknowledge that while lawyers are subject to discipline, this discipline must be fair, and lawyers
cannot be penalized without due process.

ISSUE III

Whether the Court has the authority, under the principles of natural justice, to initiate
such Suo motu contempt proceedings against an advocate, even in the absence of a formal
complaint?

1. Suo Motu Power: Existence Under Natural Justice Standards

Even though the Supreme Court of Pakistan has Suo Moto powers under Article 204 of the
Constitution and the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, Section 5(4), their exercise must conform
to the principles of natural justice, which are notice and opportunity to be heard, and impartiality.
The arbitrary exercise of that power will not fulfil the fair requirements that bolster the credibility of
justice.

2. No Complaint, No Procedural Fairness

Proceeding with initiation of proceedings without a complaint or fact-finding exercise would defeat
the right guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution, i.e., the right to a fair trial and due
process. In Muneer Hussain Bhatti v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 407), the Court
18
emphasized that Suo Motu powers should be exercised in rare cases for there are risks entailed
where procedural integrity is sacrificed by misuse.

3. No Special Circumstances Justify Exercise of Suo Motu Powers

The Court may, withhold Suo Motu action, given that the comments made by the Respondent in the
courtroom do not pose a clear and present danger to the administration of justice that makes it
necessary to bypass standard procedural channels. The facts do not suggest any disruption in the
course of operations that would necessitate the immediate intervention of the judiciary. Restraint
must be exercised by the Court, as was the conclusion in involving situations where trivial
provocations could not give rise to contempt.
4. Entitlement of Procedural Safeguards to the Advocates
Even the self-initiation of contempt proceedings, that still entitles advocates etc. to the full set of
procedural protections. The Respondent was not given enough opportunities to clarify his statements
before the notice was issued. Absence to conduct preliminary inquiry or verification disputes the
doctrine of audi alteram partem-a natural pillar of justice.

5. Judicial Accountability in Comparison with Free Speech

The opening of a contempt action without a complaint or initial fact-finding mechanism just
quenches bright courtroom expressions. An appropriate middle ground between the dignity of the
bench and the rights of advocates to free expression in the performance of their professional
responsibilities needs to be maintained.

UPR, Article 10

Affirms guarantees of due process and fairness for hearing proceedings, thereby ensuring that suo
motu proceedings are not in defiance of such guarantees.

ICCPR, Article 14(1)

Public hearing is ensured along with procedural fairness, which would prevent any arbitrary
exercise of judicial power without complaint.

Commonwealth Latimer House Principles (2003)

These principles call for transparency, accountability, and the separation of powers, which become
all the more relevant in instances when courts initiate proceedings proprio motu.
19

ISSUE IV

What are the legal consequences of recording and disseminating court proceedings without
authorization, and does the right to free speech extend to such acts in a courtroom setting?

1. No Explicit Legal Prohibition Was Violated

There is no express statutory provision in the Pakistani law- of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 or Code of
Civil Procedure- which would absolutely prohibit audio or video recording by the parties save when so directed
by the Court. In the absence of clear instructions to the contrary, the respondent's conduct itself does not seem
to have been contemptuous in character.

2. Freedom Of Speech And Right To Information Are Constitutionally Protected

Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of speech and
expression, which is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of the integrity, security, or morality of
the state. The right to free speech protects dissemination of information about court proceedings unless most
disruptive or inherently misleading, especially when that information is intended to inform rather than
undermine.

3. No Malice Or Interference Was Proved

The Respondent did not create any obstruction or distort the proceedings in question. Without exception, if no
real evidence can clearly be held demonstrating the loss the act of recording has caused to either the integrity
of the judiciary or the maintenance of public order, then there is no ground for contempt. PLD 2013 SC 829
and other cases have underscored the qualification of intent and impact necessary to found a case for contempt.

4. Transparency Strengthens Rather Than Weakens Judgments

Modern judicial imputations stipulate that transparency in the court system guarantees public confidence in the
judiciary. The Respondent's actions served to heighten any awareness there was of court activity and did not
violate public decorum or the protected right to confidentiality.

5. Proportionality Requires a Cautious Approach

There should be no penal consequences unless the act is very serious. In this type of case, reprimands or inquiry
would better fit than contempt convictions, especially with respect to the Respondent's otherwise respectful
conduct, together with a bona fide intention to uphold what was true.
20
Article 19 (2) Strongly protects the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information, possibly including
recordings of public proceedings.

Articles 19 turns out to be an edirect rejection of the surveillance themselves, including all record coate copi
of public proceedings.

UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression (multiple reports)

Said that restrictions on expression on whatever platform must satisfy the demands of legality, necessity,
and proportionality.
21

PRAYER

Wherefore in light of the questions presented, pleadings and authorities cited, the Counsel for
Petitioner humbly submits before this Honorable Court to adjudge and declare that;

1. Get rid of the contempt proceedings against the Respondent because the action being
complained of does not satisfy the legal threshold defined by the offence of contempt
of court.

2. Uphold the unconditional apology offered by the Respondent and take into
consideration the absence of any willful intent as a mitigating circumstance in
consonance with the fairness and proportionality principles observed by this Hon'ble
Court.

3. Declare that any initiation of contempt proceedings by the Court shall not hold unless
a formal complaint or extra-ordinary circumstance is shown. Otherwise, such actions
only fly in the face of the principles of natural justice as well as the constitutional right
to due process.

4. Declare that the activity of recording and sharing court proceedings, if no explicit
prohibition or intention to defy the authority of the Court is established, falls within
the ambit of freedom of expression protected by the Constitution.

And/Or
5. Any other relief which this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper for the proper
dispensation of justice may also be granted.

Respectfully Submitted
Counsel on behalf of the Respondent
M. Najeeb Sultan
M. Anas Khan
Mughees Ali