No airtime relief for any absconder, rules court
Islamabad High Court CJ’S remarks came while hearing a petition against Pemra for ordering a complete ban on airing Sharif’s speeches; govt negotiating with UK to bring ex-pm back, says Imran’s adviser
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Athar Minallah has said that there would be no relief given to any absconder for airing their speeches on the Pakistani television channels.
Minallah’s remarks came while hearing a petition against the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) for ordering a complete ban on airing of speeches of former premier Nawaz Sharif.
“It was not in public interest to give relief to an absconder,” said Justice Minallah.
The petition was filed by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan ( HRCP) along with some journalists, who contested that Pemra has barred all electronic media outlets from airing, broadcasting and rebroadcasting of speeches of former premier Nawaz Sharif and former finance minister Ishaq Dar.
The petition has been filed by renowned journalists and human rights activists IA Rehman, Saleema Hashmi, Mohammad Ziauddin, Saleem Safi, Zahid Hussain, Asma Shirazi, Syed Ejaz Haider, Munizae Jahangir, Ghazi Salahuddin, Zubeida Mustafa, Najam Aziz Sethi, Nasim Zehra, Amber Rahim Shamsi, Gharida Farooqi, Mehmal Sarfraz and Mansoor Ali Khan. Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) Vice Chairman Abid Saqi was also among the petitioners.
It is important to note that both Nawaz Sharif and Ishaq Dar have been declared as absconders by the Pakistani courts.
The court suggested to the lawyer to seek instructions from the petitioners and argue the case again on Dec.16.
The order was issued in the wake of Sharif, who is in London since last year for medical treatment ater securing bail, targeting state institutions in a speech broadcast live by TV channels while he was addressing an all parties conference via video link.
During the course of proceedings, the IHC chief justice asked the lawyer as to who were the petitioners seeking relief for as the Pemra order had not specified any individual and the ‘two people’ affected by it were not even present.
During the course of hearing, Justice Minallah raised multiple questions about maintainability of the petition. He asked the petitioners’ counsel Salman Akram Raja for whom the petitioners were seeking relief.
The chief justice said an aggrieved party could only file representation before Pemra within the stipulated time frame, adding the deadline for filing such an appeal had also lapsed.
“Not a single person has ever filed an appeal before Pemra against the directive, it means that no one was aggrieved with the directive,” he remarked.
Without naming anyone, the chief justice remarked that apparently two persons had been affected by the Pemra directives.
Raja argued that there were hundreds of absconders and it was not a mater of two persons only.
He told the court that the petitioners wanted free flow of information and its dissemination to the public at large as provided under Article 19 of the Constitution.
Justice Minallah pointed out that Article 19 ensures freedom of expression but a person loses certain rights ater they are declared a proclaimed offender. The absconder loses the right of citizenship, and sometimes his computerised national identity card and passport are also blocked by the government.
Justice Minallah replied that the petition was not simple since not a single absconder had ever approached the authority. Television channels discuss absconders, the ban is only for giving them airtime, he added.
He then asked the counsel to explain why a person absconds and in which circumstances the court declares a person a proclaimed offender, adding a person absconds ater he loses confidence in the judicial system of the country.
Raja argued that Pemra’s directives were for journalists and media persons, therefore, they were also aggrieved parties in this mater. Justice Minallah remarked that this would be a test case for the judicial system.
“Do you think relief would be extended to all the absconders and proclaimed offenders,” adding it is not in the public interest to give relief to an absconder.