The Supreme Court on Monday directed the print and electronic media not to publish any news or telecast such programmes or discussions, having derogatory remarks about judiciary, saying that the freedom of speech was subject to some restrictions.
A three-member bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Justice Mian Hamid Farooq and Justice Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, was hearing the suo moto case against a private television channel.
The Supreme Court on Friday, taking suo moto action, had issued a contempt of court notice to a private TV channel for its report of an alleged meeting between Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar and Interior Secretary Syed Kamal Shah in which two senior judges of the apex court were allegedly also present.
The court directed the print and electronic media not to publish any news item in respect of the person of a judge in any capacity without proper verification and prior permission of the court registrar. The TV channel's bureau chief appeared before the court and sought some time for submitting his point of view, saying that it was a serious matter and he wanted to engage some lawyers for legal assistance.
Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, while hearing the case, inquired as to who was paying for the advertisements being telecast pertaining to the judiciary. "Freedom of press does not mean a licence to insult anyone," he remarked.
Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, who has been asked by the court to assist, said the case required interpretation of Article 19 and Article 204 of the Constitution. The power of media had been recognised, but intentionally scandalising an institution was a serious matter, he said.
At this, Justice Nawaz Abbasi remarked that the judiciary was being disgraced. He said that under Article 19 of the Constitution, media was not free to heap slanders. Action could be taken under the Article 204 of the Constitution, he added. RIUJ President Afzal Butt and PFUJ Secretary General Mazhar Abbas requested the court not to impose any kind of bar on the media, saying that it would imply that the step had been taken to stop media from projecting lawyers movement in future.
Earlier on November 3, 2007, it was done by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra), but the Supreme Court should not do the same, they added. Dr Babar Awan, who was present in the court, argued that the interim order, which was under process in the court, would imply that media had been barred by the apex court.
On this the court asked him to assist in describing the concept of freedom of speech and liberty of a person in Islam and the nexus of this concept with the Constitution. Earlier, the court had asked Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada and Waseem Sajjad for assistance in the case.
Similarly, amicus curiae, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada requested court not to issue one-sided interim order. The court observed that it was a serious matter as judiciary was being disgraced and changed its order under process. The court ordered the Pemra and the Ministry of Information to produce records of programmes, news items published in the media pertaining to judiciary after November 3, 2007. The court adjourned the hearing till May 22.
Comments
Comments are closed.