The Supreme Court rejected MQM leader Mustafa Kamal's plea for immediate pardon in the contempt of court case, while giving Senator Faisal Vawda a week to reconsider his reply.

At the beginning of the hearing, Barrister Farogh Naseem told the court that Mustafa Kamal had apologized unconditionally in a one-page reply. He had specifically apologized for the May 16 press conference and now presented himself at the mercy of the court, the counsel said.

Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Qazi Faez Isa asked if Kamal was inspired by Vawda and held a press conference on a separate day. Farogh Naseem said the MQM leader's press conference was just a coincidence. The CJP asked the lawyer if, as a court officer, he thought his client had committed contempt or not. Barrister Naseem replied in the negative.

Justice Isa also asked if it was not contempt, then what his client apologised for, adding that the nation needed a parliament and judiciary that were respected by the people. "I think this is the first time that we have taken notice of contempt of court. Faisal Vawda is in the Senate where there must be more decent and sorted people," he said, adding that if there was such an attack on the judiciary in the presence of members of the assembly then it was an attack of one institution on another.

The CJP also remarked that Mustafa Kamal did not apologize when he went to the press club, at which the lawyer said his client was ready to do so if that was a condition. The reason for apologising is that Mustafa Kamal wants to respect the judiciary, he added.

Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan told the court that the conduct of judges cannot be discussed even in parliament, and similarly, the court also has no authority to act on the proceedings of the House. “A member of parliament cannot hold dual citizenship, which is also a law made by parliament,” he stressed.

CJP Isa said the court had not taken up a dual citizenship case but of contempt of court. He also remarked that the court has never said its decisions should not be criticised, adding that they do not like to issue contempt notices to anyone.

Meanwhile, the court sought a response on PEMRA's notification banning the broadcast of content related to contempt of court. The Supreme Court sought a response from the media regulator on the ban on judicial reporting.

The CJP asked Faisal Vawda's lawyer if his client did not want to apologize. The lawyer replied that a written response has been submitted. The CJP inquired what purpose he wanted to serve with the press conference. "Have you introduced a bill in parliament to change any law? Did we ever ask why a certain senator did not attend the session for so many days?"

On the other hand, the court issued show-cause notices to 34 TV channels for broadcasting the press conferences of Faisal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal. He asked the TV channels to respond within two weeks why contempt of court action should not be initiated against them. The CJP said that airing defamatory content was tantamount to defamation, adding the notices to TV channels should be sent through PEMRA.

CJP Isa inquired whether Vawda and Kamal held any other press conference to show remorse for their actions. Farogh Naseem replied in the negative. The chief justice remarked they were giving time to Faisal Vawda to revise his reply submitted to court.

Later, the hearing of the case was adjourned till June 28.