ISLAMABAD - The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Friday dismissed a petition seeking contempt of court proceedings against Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) leader Maryam Nawaz and former prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi. 
A single bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Athar Minallah rejected the petition moved by a lawyer Kulsum Khaliq Advocate under Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. 
The petitioner prayed to the court that contempt proceedings be initiated against Maryam and Shahid Khaqan Abbasi.
However, the bench turned down her plea by terming “the petition is not maintainable and, therefore, accordingly dismissed.” 
The petitioner adopted in her petition that both of them attempted to ‘scandalize the character assassination in front of media in public-at-large of the former Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar.’ 
During the hearing, Justice Athar asked from the petitioner that whether respondents had said anything against this Court or its present judges, calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice or to prejudice pending proceedings. She answered in the negative. 
The IHC Chief Justice noted in his order that this Court has highlighted the principles and law regarding contempt in the case titled “The State v. Dr. Firdous Ashiq Awan” and there is no cavil to the proposition that judges are not above the law and they are accountable. He added that bonafide criticism is an integral part of the accountability of judicial officers. 
He mentioned that the scope of contempt has been aptly described by Lord Atkin in the judgment of the House of Lords titled “Ambard v. Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago.” 
Justice Athar said that a judge who ceases to hold a judicial office upon retirement instantly severs his or her connection with the judicial organ and the courts. “A judge after retirement, therefore, attains the status of a private citizen,” said the judge.
He added that however, a judicial officer, after his retirement, is not without a remedy in case the latter considers to have been maligned or his respect lowered in the eyes of the people. He continued, “As a private citizen it remains open to a retired judicial officer to seek remedies available in a court of law. However, the offence of contempt is not attracted in the case of a retired judge because after retirement the latter attains the status of a private citizen.” 
The bench maintained that it is not a power meant to protect a judge as an individual nor the latter’s dignity. Judges are entrusted with an onerous duty to serve the people through the fountain of justice and they are, therefore, not immune from public scrutiny nor criticism. 
It further said, “An independent judge would not be influenced nor affected in any other manner because of public criticism. The authority of a judge is not dependent on the words of the Constitution but, rather, rests on public respect and the confidence of the people. The exercise of the power of contempt would be justified only if it is in the public interest i.e. to protect the rights of the litigants during pending proceedings or when it appears that an act or omission is calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice.”
It also said that being magnanimous is an essential attribute of an independent and impartial judge because of the exalted position and the divine nature of judicial functions. 

It maintained that the petitioner seems to be hurt because a former Chief Justice of Pakistan has been publically criticized in his individual capacity. This definitely does not attract the offence of contempt.