[IIUI] Intra-Faculty Moot Court Competition, 2025
Team Code: HJ026
BEFORE
THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT
2025
THE STATE
……………………… PETITIONER
VERSUS
ADVOCATE TARIQ MEHMOOD QURESHI
……………………. RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITONER
1
[IIUI] Intra-Faculty Moot Court Competition, 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index of Authorities…………………………………….…………………………………….….3
Statement of Facts …………………………………………………………………………4
Statement of Jurisdiction …………………………………………………………...…….…...6
Statement of Issues………………………………………………………………………………7
Summary of Arguments………………………………………………………….……….……...8
Argument Advanced………………………………………………………………………….….9
Prayer……………………………….…………………………………………………….……12
2
[IIUI] Intra-Faculty Moot Court Competition, 2025
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CONSTITUTION & ARTICLES
CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN 1973
ARTICLE 19:
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
ARTICLE 204:
CONTEMPT OF COURT
CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDINANCE,2003.
SECTION 3: DEFINITION TYPES OF CONTEMPT
SECTION 5: PUNISHMENTS FOR CONTEMPT
SECTION 11: PROCEDURE FOR CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
SECTION 18: MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES ( E.G. APOLOGY)
LEGAL PROVISIONS AND BAR COUNCIL ACT , 1973
PROVISIONS GOVERNING DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
AGAINST ADVOCATES ( E.G. LICENSE SUSPENSION)
CASES CITATION:
1. PLD 2010 SC 265 – Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan
2. PLD 2013 SC 120 – Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings against
Imran Khan
3. PLD 2006 SC 394 – In Re: Contempt of Court against Chief
Secretary, Sindh
4. PLD 1989 SC 689 – State v. A.A. Zaidii
5. PLD 2009 SC 217 – M.A. Malik v. Supreme Court
6. Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 – Sections 3, 5, and 11
7. Article 204, Constitution of Pakistan
8. Article 19, Constitution of Pakistan
3
[IIUI] Intra-Faculty Moot Court Competition, 2025
STATEMENT OF Facts
1. Incident of 15.05.2024:
On 15th May 2024, during ongoing court proceedings presided over by Mr. Justice Aslam
Rehman, Advocate Tariq Mehmood Qureshi (Respondent) was present in the courtroom
for his own case.
After the court adjourned briefly, the Respondent aggressively raised objections to the
Judge’s earlier directions to maintain decorum, accusing the Judge of insulting the
lawyers’ fraternity.
The Respondent began shouting in the courtroom, uttered harsh remarks against the
presiding Judge, and incited fellow advocates to challenge the Court’s authority and file a
reference against the Judge.
2. Disregard for Court Orders:
Despite repeated instructions from court staff to cease his disruptive conduct, the
Respondent persisted in shouting and recorded a video of his actions using his cell phone.
The video was disseminated on social media, further undermining the dignity of the
Court.
When summoned by the Judge to de-escalate the situation in chambers, the Respondent
refused, disparagingly stating, *“we do not meet such rubbish persons,”* and continued
his outburst.
3. Contempt Proceedings Initiated:
The presiding Judge, Mr. Justice Aslam Rehman, formally filed a reference under
Sections 3 & 11 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, read with Article 204 of the
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, citing the Respondent’s willful contempt.
4
[IIUI] Intra-Faculty Moot Court Competition, 2025
The reference highlighted the Respondent’s history of contemptuous conduct, including
prior instances where he tendered unconditional apologies
4. Evidence and Non-Compliance:
The State submitted affidavits from three court staff witnesses (Hassan Ali, Muhammad
Usman, and Bilal Ahmed), a USB containing the viral video, attested copies of previous
contempt orders, and a letter from the Panjnad Bar Council confirming the suspension of
the Respondent’s license.
A show-cause notice was issued on 20.05.2024, directing the Respondent to appear
personally on 22.05.2024. The Respondent ignored the notice, necessitating the issuance
of bailable arrest warrants (Rs. 500,000). He was subsequently arrested and produced
before the Court on 23.05.2024.
5. Aggravating Circumstances:
The Respondent’s actions were deliberate, public, and aimed at eroding judicial
authority. His prior disciplinary record, including license suspension and repeated
contempt cases, demonstrates a pattern of disrespect for the judiciary.
The State contends that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes a clear and willful contempt of
court, warranting strict legal consequences to uphold the sanctity of judicial proceedings under
the applicable laws.
5
[IIUI] Intra-Faculty Moot Court Competition, 2025
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court possesses jurisdiction under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973,
which empowers superior courts to punish acts amounting to contempt. The Respondent’s
conduct disrupting proceedings (clause 2(a)), defying judicial instructions (clause 2(b)), and
scandalizing the Court through derogatory remarks (clause 2(c)) constitutes contempt as defined
under these provisions.
The Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 further substantiates this authority:
Section 3 categorizes the Respondent’s actions as contemptuous.
Section 11 outlines procedural compliance, satisfied through the formal reference by Mr.
Justice Aslam Rehman, initiation of proceedings, issuance of a show-cause notice, and framing
of charges.
Section 5 prescribes penalties, confirming the Court’s power to adjudicate and sanction.
As the Respondent is a practicing lawyer, the matter assumes heightened gravity, necessitating
judicial oversight under the Court’s original contempt jurisdiction. The procedural steps
undertaken align with constitutional and statutory mandates, unequivocally vesting this Court
with jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
6
[IIUI] Intra-Faculty Moot Court Competition, 2025
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
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 SECTION18 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDINANCE, 2003?
3. WHETHER THECOURT 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?
7
[IIUI] Intra-Faculty Moot Court Competition, 2025
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
The respondent’s conduct—shouting during proceedings, making derogatory remarks toward the
bench, inciting others, and unlawfully recording and disseminating videos of the court
proceedings—amounts to a serious violation of Sections 3 and 11 of the Contempt of Court
Ordinance, 2003, and Article 204 of the Constitution. Such behavior disrupts the administration
of justice and undermines the judiciary’s dignity. In PLD 2010 SC 265, the Supreme Court
affirmed that courts have inherent authority to punish conduct that threatens their sanctity and
orderly functioning.
In contempt cases, intent is immaterial; what matters is the effect on the court’s authority. The
respondent’s apology lacks credibility, particularly given his record of prior contempt and a
suspended license. As held in PLD 2013 SC 120, even unintentional acts that lower the court’s
esteem amount to contempt, and prior behavior is relevant in evaluating an apology and the need
for deterrent action.
The contempt proceedings initiated under suo motu jurisdiction are legally valid under Article
204, with the judge’s reference satisfying procedural requirements. In PLD 2006 SC 394, the
Supreme Court upheld the court’s power to act independently to protect its dignity and maintain
public confidence.
Furthermore, recording and disseminating courtroom proceedings violates decorum and is not
protected under Article 19. While freedom of expression is guaranteed, PLD 1989 SC 689
confirms it is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of judicial integrity.
Given the respondent’s repeated misconduct and disregard for court authority, strict punitive
action under Section 5 of the Ordinance is warranted. PLD 2009 SC 217 emphasizes the
necessity of firm sanctions to deter habitual offenders and uphold the rule of law.
8
[IIUI] Intra-Faculty Moot Court Competition, 2025
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. The Respondent’s Actions Clearly Amount to Contempt of Court
The Respondent’s behavior in the courtroom on 15th May 2024 shows clear disrespect towards
the Court. He shouted at the judge, used offensive words, called other lawyers to protest, and
refused to follow the judge’s instructions. Even after being warned, he kept disturbing the
proceedings and made a video of his actions, which he later posted on social media.
Under Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, this type of behavior is contempt,
because it:
1.Disrupts court proceedings,
2.Disobeys lawful orders, and
3.Disrespects the dignity of the Court.
Also, as per Section 11, proper procedure was followed a reference was filed, a show-cause
notice was issued, and charges were framed.
● PLD 2010 SC 265 – Mobashir Hassan’s Case
Held: Courts have constitutional power to punish for contempt to maintain judicial
authority and public trust.
The Supreme Court said that courts must protect their authority and can punish anyone
who tries to bring the judiciary into disrespect.
9
[IIUI] Intra-Faculty Moot Court Competition, 2025
Use this: To show that the respondent’s actions were not just disrespectful they were
illegal under contempt law.
● Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, Sections 3 & 11
Apply here as the basis of procedure and definition of contempt.
2. Lack of Intention or Apology Does Not Remove the Contempt
The Respondent claims he didn’t “mean” to commit contempt and is now willing to
apologize. But intention is not the only thing that matters — the effect of his actions is
more important. His behavior publicly insulted the Court and lowered its authority.
Also, this is not the first time. He has done similar things before, apologized, and
promised to behave. But he still repeated the same actions. This shows that the apology is
not sincere, and he does not respect the law.
● PLD 2013 SC 120 – Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings against Imran Khan
Held: Even without intention, statements or conduct that lower the dignity of the court
amount to contempt.
3. The Court Has the Power to Start Contempt Proceedings on Its Own (Suo Motu)
The Court has the power under Article 204 of the Constitution and the 2003 Ordinance
to take action on its own when its respect or independence is attacked. The Court doesn’t
need a complaint from someone else to begin proceedings.
In this case, the Judge himself filed a reference, and there is strong evidence, so the
Court was right to take notice and start contempt action.
● PLD 2006 SC 394 – In Re: Contempt of Court against Chief Secretary
4. Recording and Sharing Court Proceedings is a Violation — Not Free Speech
The Respondent recorded a video inside the courtroom and made it go viral. This is
strictly against court rules and is another form of contempt.
10
[IIUI] Intra-Faculty Moot Court Competition, 2025
He cannot claim freedom of speech here because Article 19 of the Constitution allows
freedom of speech only with reasonable limits. Respect for the court is one of those
limits. What he did was not free speech — it was an attack on the dignity of the court.
● PLD 1989 SC 689 – State v. A.A. Zaidii
Held: Right to free speech cannot be used to insult or undermine courts.
● Article 19, Constitution of Pakistan
Only allows speech that does not damage public order or judicial authority.
5. His Past Record Shows He Deserves a Strict Punishment
This is not a one-time mistake. The Respondent has a history of similar misconduct. His
law license was suspended, and he had promised not to repeat such behavior. But he still
did.
This shows he is not willing to change, and giving him another chance will send the
wrong message. Strict punishment is necessary to protect the respect and authority of the
courts.
● PLD 2009 SC 217 – M. A. Malik v. Supreme Court
Held: A repeat offender in contempt cases should be dealt with firmly to maintain public
trust in courts.
● Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, Section 5
Provides punishment for those found guilty of contempt.
11
[IIUI] Intra-Faculty Moot Court Competition, 2025
PRAYER
In light of the facts, legal provisions, and arguments submitted above, it is respectfully prayed
that this Honorable Court may graciously be pleased to
1. Hold that the Respondent, Advocate Tariq Mehmood Qureshi, has committed willful
contempt of court under Sections 3 and 11 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003,
read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan;
2. Reject the Respondent’s defense of lack of intent and his subsequent apology as
insufficient to mitigate his misconduct, especially in light of his past history of similar
behavior;
3. Declare that the Court rightfully exercised its suo motu jurisdiction in initiating contempt
proceedings to protect the dignity, independence, and orderly functioning of the
judiciary;
4. Hold that the act of unauthorized recording and dissemination of courtroom proceedings
constitutes a separate and punishable offense, not protected under Article 19 of the
Constitution;
5. Award an appropriate and strict penalty under Section 5 of the Contempt of Court
Ordinance, 2003, to set a necessary precedent and uphold public confidence in the
judicial system.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER
12
