ISLAMABAD: Justice Athar Minallah said the public cannot be deprived of access to the court proceedings through live streaming except in exceptional circumstances and for compelling reasons.

The Supreme Court judge wrote a separate note on not live-streaming the proceedings of intra-court appeals against the SC judgment on amendments in National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999.

A five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, and comprising Justice Aminud Din Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Athar Minallah, and Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, on May 30, while hearing the ICAs of the federation and some individuals by a majority of 4-1 dismissed the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa government’s petition to live broadcast the proceedings. Justice Athar had dissented.

The majority verdict stated that the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa’s plea to live-stream NAB amendment case was dismissed due to concerns that the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan will use the facility for political purposes and point scoring.

Justice Athar wrote that the exercise of discretion not to order live streaming of court proceedings by a Bench, to which the facility is available, will be lawful and justified only in exceptional circumstances and for compelling reasons.

He maintained that once the proceedings in a particular case have been live streamed then they cannot be ordered to be discontinued unless the Court is satisfied that it was necessary to do so in the public interest for a demonstrably substantial reason.

“It is manifest from the explicitly recognised right that the public is not required to put the exercise of this crucial fundamental right into motion by making a request or filing an application because ensuring the enforcement of the right of the public to have access to court proceedings through live steaming is essentially a duty and obligation of this Court,” Justice Athar wrote.

He stated that the public importance in the case of the appeal in hand cannot be understated. The vires of the amendments made in the Ordinance of 1999 were challenged by the respondent. The role of the National Accountability Bureau (‘Bureau’) itself is a matter of highest public importance.

Justice Athar noted that the respondent (Imran Khan), like other former elected prime ministers, has millions of followers across the country as has become evident from the results of the last general elections. He is definitely not an ordinary prisoner or convict.

The perception of complicity of this Court in or by allowing the elected representatives to be humiliated, harassed and persecuted for other than bona fide reasons is not unfounded. This Court, after more than four decades, has recently attempted to remedy the grave wrong done in denying an elected Prime Minster, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the right to a fair trial but regrettably the damage was irretrievable.

The chequered history and role of this Court in relation to the treatment of elected representatives has remained unflattering. The approach of this Court, therefore, should be to err in favour of the millions of followers and their representatives now, lest attempts be made after decades to remove an irretrievable blemish.

It is inevitable for this Court to walk the extra mile to ensure transparency and enforcement of the guaranteed right under Article 19-A of the Constitution by giving access to the public to the court proceedings through live streaming. Denial of access will unjustifiably give rise to suspicions and erode the confidence of the people in this Court. It is an obligation for this court to be seen as impartial, fair and independent and to dispel any perception to the contrary.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024