ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court has held that under Article 204 of the Constitution, it has full authority to initiate contempt of court proceedings.
The court clarified that any attempt to influence judicial decisions or to write letters directly to judges is unacceptable and may lead to legal consequences.
A two-member bench headed by Justice Aamir Farooq, along with Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, on Tuesday announced its judgment in the case Siraj Ahmad vs Governor Punjab. The court not only dismissed the petition but also issued a strict warning to the petitioner for interfering in judicial proceedings and writing direct letters to judges. The court had reserved its verdict on February 24, 2026 after completing the hearing of an appeal filed by former Chairman of the Drug Court Gujranwala, Siraj Ahmed, against his dismissal.
During the hearing, Siraj Ahmed’s lawyer argued that the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to hear this matter, stating that the case was originally under hearing in the Supreme Court and was later transferred to the Constitutional Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the Government of Punjab, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, had appointed Siraj Ahmad as Chairman of the Drugs Court Gujranwala for a two-year term. However, it later came to the notice of the Administrative Judge (Drugs Court) of the Lahore High Court that during his tenure as Chairman, he had not decided a single case. Consequently, the government, again in consultation with the Chief Justice, removed him from the position. He had challenged this action in the higher courts on the grounds that no inquiry was conducted against him and no show-cause notice was issued prior to his removal.
In its judgment, the Federal Constitutional Court observed that the petition carried no legal weight or merit and, while dismissing the petition, the court also disposed of all other pending applications related to the matter. “A court must be vested with the authority to initiate contempt proceedings to ensure its effective functioning, which is intrinsically linked with judicial independence,” says an 11-page judgment authored by Justice Aamer Farooq.
The court held that litigants approach courts for the resolution of their disputes, and it is the courts that adjudicate and settle those matters, adding that access to justice, intertwined with the independence of the judiciary, reflects the public’s confidence in our judicial system. “Where court orders are not implemented, or judicial pronouncements are disregarded as though cast into thin air, firm and uncompromising action becomes imperative,” the court held, adding that no leniency can be afforded on this score.
The judgment noted that the petitioner had written letters through the Registrar’s Office requesting the recusal of one of the bench members, Justice Aamir Farooq, from the case. The court noted that the latest letter was sent on March 27, 2026, after the judgment had already been reserved, which was deemed inappropriate.
The court described the petitioner’s conduct as highly improper and concerning, adding that the language used in the letters was not only disrespectful but also amounted to contempt of court.
However, the court, at its discretion, has refrained from taking strict action for now, but warned the petitioner that any future attempt to directly contact judges or engage in similar behaviour could result in contempt of court proceedings being initiated against him.
