The Islamabad High Court on Thursday summoned chairman Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, Dr Syed Ismail Shah on January 20 to submit reply on a matter regarding blocking of websites in the country. A single-member bench of Justice Athar Minnallah resumed hearing of the petition filed by local NGO, Bolo Bhi challenging the authority of Inter-Ministerial Committee for Evaluation of Websites (IMCEW) for the blockage of websites and pleading the court to declare it unconstitutional.
During the course of proceeding, the court sought comprehensive reply from chairman PTA on blockage of about 25000 web-sites directing him to appear in person on next date of hearing.
An official of MoIT submitted the ministry reply on the matter, stating that Federal Government, as defined under Section 2(fa) of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organisation) Act, 1996 had been mandated under Section 8 of the Act, to issue policy directives on the matters relating to telecommunications and the PTA is to implement the same.
He said that the authority protects the rights of its consumers furthermore interests of the users of telecommunication services were duly safeguarded and protected under section 5, read with section 21 of the Act. It was further stated that the IMCEW had mandate of blocking websites.
Advocate Babar Sattar counsel for the petitioner contended that that PTA deprived their patrons from latest developments in IT, further more IMCEW blocked some very important and informative websites illegally, which is in violation of consumers' rights.
Upon which, Justice Athar Minnallah remarked that world is looking for latest techniques and information, but in Pakistan we are blocking flow of information.
Later, the bench directed PTA chairman to come up with full relevant record and criteria on which the department blocks websites as MoIT representative failed to satisfy the bench and adjourned the case till January 20.
Earlier, the court restrained the IMCEW from issuing any order regarding blocking access to websites without the court's permission.
Comments
Comments are closed.