SHC removes curbs on court reporting

Sets aside PEMRA's notification of May 21

KARACHI:

The provincial High Court of Sindh (SHC) has accepted two petitions against the restrictions imposed by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) on live reporting of court proceedings.

On May 21, Pemra issued a notification directing all satellite TV channels not to air any content, including commentary, opinions or suggestions about the potential fate of "such sub judice matter which tends to prejudice the determination by a court or tribunal".

The regulator also directed TV channels to refrain from airing tickers and headlines with regard to court proceedings, asking them to report only written orders of court. "However, where court proceedings are broadcast live, such proceedings may be reported by the TV channels," it said.

The Pemra notification also referred to a 2018 verdict of the Supreme Court in a suo motu case with regard to discussion of sub-judice matters.

On May 27, some court reporters in Karachi challenged the notification in the SHC. At the first hearing of the petition, SHC former chief justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi suspended the notification.

A division bench of the SHC—comprising Chief Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana—on Friday unveiled a 23-page order on reporters' petitions.

The order noted that to address the challenge raised by the petitioners against the Pemra directives, it reviewed the content of the directives and compared them to the provisions of the Electronic Media (Programmes and Advertisements) Code of Conduct – 2015.

It said the Pemra's directive attempted to allegedly piggyback a judgment of the Supreme Court to modify a statutory Code of Conduct without following the statutory process.

"Just because a directive in 2024 cross-references an [SC] judgment of 2018, did not make it kosher for PEMRA to avoid the procedural requirements of introducing an amendment to the Code of Conduct, i.e. through Council of Complaint and/or to elicit public opinion on the draft version before its introduction into PEMRA Rules, 2009, etc."

It said a judgment of the Supreme Court may be binding based upon or enunciating a principle of law, but this did not give ground to PEMRA to issue a directive without following the process required to make it a law.

"Giving such allowance to the Regulator (Executive) would violate the separation of power, a fundamental principle of our constitutional construct" it said.

The court noted that Pemra does not appear to have appreciated that the Supreme Court in the matter of suo motu of 2018 approved the Code of Conduct and its "reasonable restrictions".

It said a portion of the directive also appeared to be a significant departure from Clauses 4(3) and 4(6) of the Code of Conduct.

The order said the Pemra notification also failed to provide a clarification on whether it sought to amend, modify, supplement, add, override or repeal the existing clauses of the Code pertaining to sub-judice matters and court proceedings.

"[An] analysis also reveals that the impugned directive has no portions within the framework of the Code of Conduct," it added.