.
MOOT PROBLEM
INTRA-FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025
Moot Court Society, IIUI
Faculty of Shariah & Law, International Islamic University Islamabad
State v Advocate Tariq Mehmood Qureshi
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
1|Page
State v Advocate Tariq Mehmood Qureshi
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 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.
2|Page
State v Advocate Tariq Mehmood Qureshi
Legal Issues for Determination
1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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?
4. 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?
3|Page
