LHC seeks govt reply on compliance with sedition order

Lahore High Court (LHC) Justice Shahid Karim on Thursday sought the federal government's reply on a plea seeking compliance with the court’s sedition law order.

Last month, the LHC had passed an order invalidating Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), commonly known as sedition law that pertains to the crime of sedition or inciting disaffection against the government, declaring it as ultra vires of the Constitution.

As proceedings commenced today, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the LHC had struck down the sedition law but the government is still not complying with the court’s order.

Read Sedition law haunts Subcontinent since colonial era

He argued that this law had been made in 1860 in the British era, adding that the British used this law for its slaves as it was easy to register a first information report (FIR) against anyone under this section.

“But Pakistan’s Constitution provides a right of freedom of speech to every citizen,” maintained the petitioner.

He contended that despite the LHC order, FIRs are being registered against political leaders under the aforesaid section.

The petitioner requested the court to comply with its earlier order wherein the sedition law had been struck down as the said Section is not only contrary to the Constitution but also against its “real essence”.

Earlier this year, LHC Judge Karim had announced the decision which he had reserved after hearing detailed arguments on different petitions.

Also read Private persons can’t file sedition cases: IHC

The lawyers representing the federation had fiercely opposed the arguments of the petitioners’ lawyers, contending that this section was about “whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the federal or provincial government established by law shall be punished”.

They added that Section 124-A of the PPC was used in accordance with the law to restrain any person from resorting to these offences.

However, the petitioners' lawyers argued that the use of this section was tantamount to depriving the people of their basic right of freedom of expression.