Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Athar Minallah on Thursday observed that it was not in public interest to give relief to an absconder as he heard a petition against the electronic media watchdog’s order that barred the airing of speeches of proclaimed offenders, particularly those of convicted former premier Nawaz Sharif and ex-finance minister Ishaq Dar.
The petition was moved by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and some journalists through their counsel Suleman Akram Raja.
Last month, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) had prohibited TV channels from broadcasting or rebroadcasting any speech, interview or public address of absconders or proclaimed offenders.
The regulatory body had also banned the broadcasting of commentary, opinions or suggestions about the potential fate of sub-judice matter.
The order was issued in the wake of Sharif, who is in London since last year for medical treatment after securing bail, targeting state institutions in a speech broadcast live by TV channels while he was addressing an all parties conference via video link.
During the course of proceedings, the IHC chief justice asked the lawyer as to who were the petitioners seeking relief for as the Pemra order had not specified any individual and the ‘two people’ affected by it were not even present.
The lawyer responded that the petitioners were claiming relief for the sake of public interest.
The judge noted that if the Pemra order was done away with, all absconders would be granted the relief of going live on air.
The chief justice further observed that the court had clarified in former military ruler Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s case that it would not interfere in the affairs of executive. He added that Musharraf was also an absconder. “Do the petitioners want Musharraf's speeches to be aired as well?” he inquired.
The lawyer responded that the petition did not pertain to an individual. He added that the petitioners did not want to be stopped from relaying information to the public.
The lawyer contended that the order had affected thousands of people, not just two individuals. “The ban has affected the citizens' right to information which had been granted by the Constitution,” he said, pointing out that Article 19 (A) guaranteed the right to freedom of expression.
The IHC chief justice remarked that every citizen had the right to freedom of speech but only the people affected by the Pemra order could challenge it.
He further noted that a proclaimed offender could not even challenge an illegal order.
The judge said absconders should first surrender themselves before the court and then avail their legal rights.
The judge inquired if the petitioners wanted the relief to be granted to all absconders, adding that the matter was a test for the entire judicial system.
"Granting relief to an absconder is not in the public interest,” he noted, “This court can’t give indirect relief to any absconder,” he said, adding that there were international laws that dealt with the issue.
The lawyer argued that journalists were affected by the Pemra order.
The IHC CJ noted that that Pemra had banned the coverage of Sharif's speeches and the petitioners could file an appeal against the decision under Section 31 with the regulatory body.
He observed that if nobody had filed an appeal with Pemra, it meant that nobody was affected by the decision.
“If the ‘two people’ [who are affected by the order] haven’t approached the court, then how can the petitioners file the case?” he inquired.
The judge noted that although Pemra had banned TV channels from airing the speeches of absconders, they were still discussed on the media every day.
The IHC CJ asked the lawyer to satisfy the court as to whether the absconders could avail the relief after appearing before the court and if the petitioners wanted this relief for all absconders.
The court granted time to the lawyer to prepare for the case and adjourned the matter till December 16.
(With input from APP)
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ