The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday slapped a temporary ban on airing of ‘anti-judiciary’ speeches by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz, Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and other leaders of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).
A full bench of the high court headed by J
ustice Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi and comprising J
ustice Masood Jahangir and J
ustice Atir Mahmoud resumed hearing of 27 miscellaneous contempt
petitions. The court referre
d the petitions to the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), granting it 15 days to remove all anti-judiciary content in addition to deciding on the
petitions.
J
ustice Mazahir Ali Naqvi ruled that the court will personally monitor PEMRA’s conduct in the next two weeks to see how it implements the court order. The high court also directed all authorities concerned to ensure that no contemptuous speech is broadcast on any TV channel in the next 15 days.
During the proceedings, the PEMRA was criticized for dismissing
petitions highlighting ‘anti-judiciary’ remarks. The counsel for the
petitioners informe
d the court that PEMRA did not take any action over
petitions filed against ‘anti-judiciary’ speeches by some political leaders.
J
ustice Naqvi remarked that while Article 19 of the constitution allowed fair criticism of judiciary, not everyone can be
permitted to criticise the court decisions just for the sake of exercising their right to criticise. He said that it makes sense for a lawyer or a legal expert only to dwell on the judicial verdicts. Drawing attention to Article 68 of the constitution, J
ustice Naqvi said it even prevente
d the parliament from criticizing the judiciary and its decisions. “A person dissatisfied at a ve
rdict should file a review
petition,” he added.
Stressing that his client was being subjected to baseless criticism, PEMRA counsel Salman Akram Raja sai
d the authority had used its powers to decide on the issue. Observing that PEMRA had dismisse
d the petition on technical grounds, the bench inquired if the ve
rdict should be taken as a green signal for speeches against the judiciary. PEMRA chose not to stop the ‘anti-judicary’ remarks, said J
ustice Mehmood.
“The authority may have committed a minor mistake by dismissing the
petition,” replied Raja. “This is not a minor mistake,” the bench observed. “Instead of taking action, PEMRA sought advice from judiciary. Should publishing of such a notice be considered a minor mistake?”
Noting that the notice did not prove the authority had failed in performance of its duties, J
ustice Jahangir stressed that it was not fulfilling its responsibilities. PEMRA’s counsel admitted that the move was a mistake.
Meanwhile, Nawaz Sharif’s counsel AK Dogar again raised objections to the inclusion of J
ustice Naqvi in the bench. “The judge authore
d the order against Nawaz Sharif allowing no chance of defence,” the application filed by Dogar reads. It added that the remarks caused stress to his client after which he expects no fair treatment at the hands of J
ustice Naqvi. However, the bench dismisse
d the defense counsel’s reservations.
Published in Daily Times, April 17th 2018.