Imran moves LHC over PEMRA's ban on his speeches

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan filed a petition in the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday, challenging PEMRA’s prohibition order banning TV channels from broadcasting his live or recorded speeches.

The petition, filed through barrister Muhammed Ahmed Pansota, contended that in the judgment reported as “Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi Vs PEMRA”, then Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) Athar Minallah had declared a similar PEMRA prohibition order as “ultra vires the Ordinance” (over-stretching itself beyond the powers conferred upon it) on similar grounds.

Imran’s counsel stated in the petition that PEMRA has issued the impugned order in excess of the jurisdiction vested in it and without having regard to the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 19-A of the Constitution.

Also read: PEMRA bans airing of Imran Khan’s speeches

A plain reading of Section 27 also, prima-facie, shows that it does not empower the authority to issue a blanket prohibition order, which appears to be in violation of the principle of proportionality, added the former premier's counsel.

He further contended that under Section 8 of the PEMRA Ordinance, “1/3rd of the total members of the authority shall constitute a quorum for the meetings of the authority requiring a decision by the authority which comprises a chairman and 12 members [13 in all]”.

As such, at least five members should be present to constitute a quorum, and, under Section 8(5), all orders, determinations, and decisions of the authority shall be taken in writing and shall identify the determination of the chairman and each member separately, read the petition.

The counsel added that according to the regulatory authority’s own press release, the PEMRA meeting which passed the “impugned order” was attended by only four members including its chairman.

Also read: IHC overturns PEMRA ban on live telecast of Imran’s speeches

“In as much as less than 1/3rd of all members were present; the impugned order was therefore coram-non-judice. The said order also failed to pass muster under section 8(5) of the PEMRA Ordinance as the separate order of each member has not been identified therein,” the petition stated.

The counsel contended that the PEMRA’s order is illegal, unlawful, and contrary to the fundamental rights as enshrined under the Constitution of Pakistan “as such liable to be set aside”.

In the petition, the former premier's counsel also denied the PEMRA’s claims that he made hate speech or any provocative statements against state institutions.