BR100 Increased By (0.44%)
BR30 Increased By (1.39%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.62%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.61%)
BECO 5.43 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-1.09%)
BML 55.69 Decreased By ▼ -1.07 (-1.89%)
BOP 35.38 Increased By ▲ 0.26 (0.74%)
CNERGY 8.20 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.61%)
DCL 11.55 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.35%)
FCCL 58.36 Increased By ▲ 1.61 (2.84%)
FCSC 5.12 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.58%)
FFL 17.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.22%)
FNEL 1.25 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
HUMNL 11.07 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.45%)
KEL 8.75 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (3.92%)
KOSM 6.69 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.67%)
MLCF 107.15 Increased By ▲ 3.85 (3.73%)
NBP 201.73 Increased By ▲ 1.55 (0.77%)
PACE 11.30 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.09%)
PAEL 44.49 Increased By ▲ 1.02 (2.35%)
PIAHCLA 29.41 Increased By ▲ 1.92 (6.98%)
PIBTL 18.64 Increased By ▲ 0.94 (5.31%)
PPL 247.98 Increased By ▲ 3.66 (1.5%)
PRL 35.29 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-0.4%)
PTC 66.14 Increased By ▲ 0.79 (1.21%)
SEARL 95.49 Increased By ▲ 2.17 (2.33%)
SSGC 32.04 Decreased By ▼ -0.90 (-2.73%)
TELE 8.87 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.45%)
THCCL 66.61 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-0.16%)
TPLP 10.57 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-2.4%)
TREET 25.30 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (0.72%)
TRG 64.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.50 (-0.77%)
WAVES 10.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.27%)
WTL 1.26 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.8%)

LAHORE: A bar member has approached the Lahore High Court against the promulgation of impugned amendment in PECA Ordinance 2022 with the prayer to declare it illegal and sheer violation of Article 19 of the Constitution.

Muhammad Ayub through his counsel Chaudhry Saeed Zafar said that Article 19 of the Constitution talks about the freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

“Every citizen of Pakistan has the right to hold opinions and express the same,” he added. He said TV broadcast was being monitored by the Pemra and after the impugned amendment the TV broadcasters fell within the domain of amended ordinance.

He contended that the respondent promulgated the PECA ordinance with mala fide intention and ulterior motive just to harass and blackmail the opposition as well as public at large. He also contended that the motive behind the promulgation of this ordinance is to attack independence of judicial system as well as constitutional jurisdiction of the judges.

The counsel further added that under the impugned ordinance the definition of aggrieved person has been changed to achieve certain “goals” as any person either an informant or a complainant can file a complaint under the new ordinance.

“Due to the said amendment, the proxy litigation will increase which will ultimately burden the courts as well as prosecution”, he added. He further said as per Section 44 of the ordinance the judges are bound to submit their monthly report not only to higher forum as well as to the secretary law who would recommend the high court to take action against the judge.

He said articles 199 and 184 (3) conferred upon the superior courts the power and jurisdiction to examine the constitutionality of executive and the legislative actions. He argued that the judiciary has a duty to review legislation which breached any provision of the Constitution, hence the petition on behalf of public for violation of fundamental rights can be entertained by this court. He, therefore, prayed the court to suspend the ordinance till final decision of the petition.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2022

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.