Petitions against Pemra's order: IHC inquires about the identity of potential beneficiary

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday said that the Court in many cases had held that proclaimed offenders' and convicts' speeches could not be telecast on media?

A single bench of Chief Justice Athar Minallah, during the course of proceedings, repeatedly inquired who would be the beneficiary of this case?

Salman Akram Raja, who is representing the petitioners, replied that the benefit of it would not be confined to an individual as they have challenged the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority's (Pemra's) orders that are damaging freedom of speech, adding, "it is affecting the citizens' right available to them under Article 19A of the Constitution."

The benefit of the case will accrue to all the proclaimed offenders and the convicts.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists, the chairman Pakistan Bar Council, eminent human and civil rights activists, and senior journalists on Wednesday filed a petition in the IHC under Article 199 of Constitution praying that the Pemra Prohibition Order 01-10-2020, and a directive dated 27-05-2019, may be declared to be without lawful authority, of no legal effect, and void ab-initio.

They have cited secretary Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, PEMRA and DG (Operations) Pemra as respondents.

The Pemra on October 1, 2020, banned the broadcast and rebroadcast of any speech, interview or public address of absconders or proclaimed offenders, days after Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) supreme leader and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's fiery speeches from London at PDM rallies.

Salman Raja argued that the way Pemra orders have been issued is affecting the citizens' rights who want to receive information. He said the orders had affected the work of journalists and mediapersons, especially the TV anchors directly as they could not provide the information to their viewers/readers.

Justice Minallah said that they had already declared in their judgment that proclaimed offenders (POs) and convicts could not appear on TV channels and their interviews could not be shown on media.

Salman Raja said there were examples all over the world where the convicts were interviewed in jail, and shown on TV channels.

He said that he submitted the judgments of court of various countries.

Justice Minallah said on General Pervez Musharraf's (retd) application he had passed a judgment that a person who did not respect the courts, did not trust the courts, not surrendering before the court, and was declared a PO could not be given relief directly or indirectly.

He said the judgment in this case would directly benefit a person and a PO.

Salman Raja said the case did not pertain to providing benefit to a PO but it was related to the restriction imposed by Pemra regarding freedom of speech.

The Pemra has issued the directive in the case of former finance minister Ishaq Dar and Prohibition Order on the speeches of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

Justice Minallah observed that due to political instability in the last few years the judiciary had suffered.

He said "there shall be only one law for the poor and the rich."

He said two POs were affected by the orders of the Pemra.

He said that thousands of people are in jail or convicted, adding that whether such persons can be allowed to appear on TV screen.

He said this is not the matter of public interest, but allowing speeches and interviews of a PO.

During the course of proceedings, the IHC chief justice made it clear that the government had allowed Nawaz Sharif to go abroad but now the judiciary was blamed for this.

The petitioners submitted that the Pemra's orders were unconstitutional, and illegal prohibitions had been imposed on the electronic media with respect to dissemination of information.

"The prohibition is a constitutional wrong in the own right and amounts to nullifying the rights made available under Article 19-A of Constitution," according to the petitioners.

They raised question: Can the State, or any agency or authority obstruct access to information by the public-at-large or the dissemination of such information by the petitioners as journalists and human rights defenders or by the electronic and print media in general?

"Do the words spoken and the views expressed by a convict, a proclaimed offender or an absconder fall outside the ambit of the 'information' envisaged by Article 19A of Constitution? Can a convict, proclaimed offender or absconder be denied the right to express or the public-at-large be denied the right to receive as information the views and words expressed by the convict, proclaimed offender or absconder by way of information?"

Copyright Business Recorder, 2020