Broadcast of Sharifs' speeches: Petition seeking ban dismissed by IHC

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) held that the security of Pakistan was not frail nor it could be threatened by mere political rhetoric.

"The people of Pakistan, through their chosen representatives, have the will and resolve to safeguard the security of Pakistan. The security of Pakistan is surely not dependent on the issuance of a writ by this Court," said a single bench of Chief Justice Athar Minallah.

The bench dismissed a petition seeking ban on airing speeches of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Quaid Nawaz Sharif and party President Shehbaz Sharif on television channels, and termed it "not maintainable."

Justice Minallah wrote, "The petitioner's apprehensions regarding threats to security of Pakistan are definitely misconceived."

He continued that it was settled law that in order to seek a writ of mandamus certain pre-requisites were to be complied with, before invoking the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.

There must exist a right in the person seeking the writ to insist upon a clear duty to be performed by some public authority.

He further said that the tendency of invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of a high court in matters involving political content was certainly not in public interest and that too, when the law provided for alternate remedies.

"Courts ought to exercise restraint because of the consequences. It unnecessarily involves a Court in controversial matters which otherwise can be agitated before other appropriate forums. It also causes miscarriage of justice to the legitimate litigants because adjudication of their cases is delayed," said Justice Minallah.

He also noted, "Politically-motivated petitions inevitably make the administration of justice including the Courts controversial because politics inherently is adversarial in nature. It is the duty of every enrolled Advocate as well as the respective Bars to ensure that the courts and the administration of justice are seen as impartial and neutral arbitrators of disputes."

The IHC bench observed that the petitioner could not give a plausible explanation for invoking the jurisdiction of this court, when an alternate remedy was available to him under Section 26 of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002.

It added that the counsel was also not able to satisfy this court which of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution had been violated requiring enforcement through issuance of a writ.

"The demand of the person asserting the right must have been refused. In this case, the petitioner has not fulfilled the pre-requisites nor could show that a legal right exists in his person to seek a writ of mandamus," maintained the IHC chief justice.

Justice Minallah further said that as a corollary it was their duty to discourage litigants from bringing to the Courts unnecessary litigation having political content, particularly when the law provided for remedies and appropriate forums.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel stated that his client was concerned because the security of Pakistan was being threatened.

In his petition, the petitioner prayed before the court to issue writ of prohibition against Nawaz Sharif and others restraining and refraining them from maligning, scandalising, ridiculing, defaming, and disrespecting the state institutions including the judiciary, members of the judiciary and the judicial system in any manner whatsoever.

He also requested the court to direct the chairman PEMRA to remove the hate speeches and in future not air/broadcast any such speech/statement made by the Sharif brothers through video-link or any other source.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2020