LHC rejects request to stay Pemra notification – Pakistan

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday rejected a plea seeking a stay on the notification issued by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) on live coverage of court proceedings on news channels and asked Perma and others to respond by May 29.

The Court observed that the issues raised in the petitions were important and required resolution through the interpretation of various articles of the Constitution and the provisions of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and the Authority’s Code of Conduct.

The court therefore requested the Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) to assist it at the next hearing on the issues raised in the petition.

The plaintiffs Samra Malik and Hafiz Muhammad Zainul Abdin had approached the court against the disputed Pemra notification.

No hearing date has yet been set for another petition by Bar member Nadeem Sarwar.

Previously, Pemra’s legal counsel had questioned the admissibility of the petitions and argued that the impugned directive could be appealed before the competent High Court under Section 30-A of the 2002 Ordinance.

He submitted that the Islamabad High Court had already heard the matter and issued appropriate rulings and, therefore, the present petitions were not admissible under the law.

He further stated that directions/guidelines, including the disputed direction, could be issued to the licensees/channels under Section 18 of the Television, Radio and Station Operations Regulations, 2012, which is contained in Section 39 of the Regulations.

A deputy attorney general also echoed Pemra’s lawyer’s arguments, adding that the controversial order was reasonable and mandatory to ensure fair adjudication of pending cases in court.

He said Pemra issued the notification in accordance with the law.

He argued that the jurisdiction over the case lies with the IHC and not the LHC since Pemra’s headquarters is in Islamabad.

However, the applicant’s lawyer replied that the LHC had jurisdiction to hear the application. He also said that Pemra is a federal agency; therefore, the LHC also had jurisdiction to decide the case.

He also claimed that Pemra has not received any complaint against a ban on telecasting court proceedings. He assured that television channels and newspapers always follow Pemra’s rules and regulations.

The lawyer said that if court proceedings are misreported, Pemra has a complaints committee. In case of misreporting of the proceedings, the relevant court can also take action for contempt of court, the lawyer added.

The lawyer said that so far no case of false reporting has been reported and that if a court requires the broadcast of these statements, it is obliged to do so.

The lawyer said that Pemra’s ban violates Articles 10-A, 19 and 19-A of the Pakistani Constitution.

He requested that the Court annul the impugned communication and stay the disposal of the petitions.

After hearing both sides in detail, the court rejected the application for stay of Pemra notification and issued notices to the respondents.

According to a notification issued by Pemra last Tuesday, television channels have been instructed to refrain from broadcasting tickers/headlines on court proceedings and to report only on written court orders.

However, if the court hearing is broadcast live, the proceedings can be reported on, the statement said.

It also said that all satellite television broadcasters would be instructed not to broadcast any content such as commentary, opinions or suggestions on the possible fate of legal disputes that could affect their determination by a court or tribunal.

Responding to the government’s objections, lawyer Azhar Siddique, representing one of the complainants, argued that no proceedings had been initiated leading to the disputed ban and, therefore, no appeal under the Ordinance was available nor was there any adequate alternative remedy.

Judge Sheikh asked the defendants to file their responses by May 29.

The judge also requested the Attorney General of Pakistan to assist the court in this matter.

The complainants argued that Pemra acted under political pressure from the government, which was already hostile to the media rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 19A of the Constitution.

They said Pemra had committed gross violations of law by failing to investigate and thoroughly examine the matter in accordance with existing laws.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024