The Supreme Court on Wednesday suspended all the contempt notices of Sindh High Court that the latter had served on Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) in response to pleas of BOL private television channel. The apex court also issued directives to Labbaik Pvt Limited for submission of a reply in response to Pemra's show-cause notice about anchor Dr Aamir Liaquat Hussain's programme 'Aisay Nahi Chalay Ga.'
Resuming the hearing of an appeal of chairman Pemra, challenging Sindh High Court's stay order that it had granted to BOL TV in response to various pleas, a three-member bench led by Justice Amir Hani Muslim ruled that the television management should avail the proper forum by filing a reply in response to a show-cause notice. However, the bench said the television management can challenge prohibition order before the Sindh High Court, but it would have to reply first on the show cause notice before the Pemra.
The counsel for the Pemra, told the bench that his client had also issued show cause notice to the television management over non-clearance of security of the television directors from the Interior Ministry for issuance of television licence.
He submitted that instead of filing a reply in response to the show-cause notice before the Pemra, the television management challenged the notice before the Sindh High Court, which granted a stay order; however, he informed that after security clearance form the ministry, the Pemra revoked its notice.
During the course of proceedings, the counsel told the bench that under Section 27 of the Pemra Ordinance, his client prohibited the television management from broadcasting a programme 'Aisay Nahi Chalay Ga' on January 26 in response to approximately 1,000 complaints that the authority received from January 02 to 24, terming the programme's contents 'hate speech'.
Responding to a query of Justice Amir Hani Muslim, the counsel for PEMRA submitted that a show-cause notice was also issued along with the prohibition order, saying the reason behind issuance of a show-cause notice and prohibition order simultaneously was to stop the alleged hate speech of the anchorperson immediately.
The counsel termed the television show 'anti-Islam' and 'anti-state', claiming the contents of the programme are instigating the viewers to violence. To which, Justice Amir Hani Muslim observed that prima facie it seems that the television management filed a contempt petition in the High Court to pressurise Pemra.
The counsel for television management alleged that the Pemra issued the notice mala fidely to his client but at the same time the lawyer confessed that his client ought to have filed a reply in response to the show-cause notice. Responding to the bench's query as to why his client approached the high court instead of filing a reply before the Pemra, the television management's lawyer submitted that there was no option but to challenge Pemra's notice before the high court.
Justice Amir Hani Muslim said while addressing the television management's counsel if his client is not ready to file a reply then there would be no way but to issue an order to file the same. To which, the counsel requested the court to issue directives, saying his client will file a response in accordance with the orders of the apex court.
Reacting to information about issuance of contempt notices to Pemra in response to the television management's pleas, Justice Amir Hani Muslim observed how it is possible that the Sindh High Court granted stay orders against Pemra's notices. According to him, if the high court makes it a practice to grant stay orders against Pemra's notices then how it would be possible for the Authority to perform its duties in accordance with the law.
During the course of hearing, the programme's anchorperson came to the rostrum and urged the court to pass an order to ban the other party from declaring him responsible for spreading hate through his programme.
To which, Justice Amir Hani Muslim said the court is not examining the matter relating to his 'hate speech' at the moment, adding the court cannot stop anybody from talking to media but it is the responsibility of people to follow the law. The bench asked the anchorperson to appear before the Pemra for submission of his viewpoint. Later, disposing of Pemra's appeal, the bench suspended all the stay orders issued against the Authority.
Comments
Comments are closed.