SHC reserves judgment on plea against Pemra order restricting court proceedings coverage

The Sindh High Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on petitions of a journalist association and court reporters against the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority’s (Pemra) letter in which television news channels were directed to refrain from airing tickers and headlines with regard to court proceedings.

The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (Dastoor) and court reporters had challenged Pemra’s directives with regard to the court proceedings coverage. Their counsel, Abdul Moiz Jaferii and M Tariq Mansoor, submitted that the impugned Pemra’s directives were tantamount to a blanket ban on the coverage of court proceedings.

They submitted that the impugned letters amounted to amendments to the 2015 Pemra code of conduct that could not be made without fair trial and due process of the law.

They submitted that the impugned directives violated the right of information regarding matters of public importance that were protected under the Article 19-A of the Constitution. The counsel submitted that Pemra had tried to impose a ban on court proceedings coverage through such directives which was against the spirit of Constitution and judgments of the Supreme Court.

They submitted that Pemra could take action in case of violation of the code of conduct and guidelines but it could not impose a ban on the coverage of court proceedings as that was the domain of the judiciary.

They submitted that only courts could restrict the media coverage of their proceedings keeping in view of sensitivity of the matter but by issuing such directions, Pemra tried to assume the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

The high court was requested to declare that the impugned directives of Pemra for television channels with regard to restriction of court proceedings coverage was unconstitutional. A division bench of the SHC headed by Chief Justice Mohammad Shafi Siddiqui asked the Pemra counsel what was wrong if courts’ remarks were reported by the media.

To this, the Pemra counsel submitted that complicated proceedings of courts were not understood by the common citizens and even journalists could not understand court remarks and legal terminologies.

The high court inquired why Pemra wanted the court proceedings to be not telecast and whether any rules had been framed in this regard. The Pemra counsel submitted that a code of conduct for the TV channels had been formulated and such court proceedings that were telecast live could be reported.

The high court inquired what the problem was if the court queries and replies were telecast by the television channels if they were not telecast live. The bench observed that the Pemra counsel’s arguments were giving an impression that the live telecast proceedings could be reported while the other proceedings could not be reported on the media.

The Pemra counsel submitted that sensationalism was spread in the TV tickers during the court proceedings. The SHC observed that if the courts were questioning the authorities, the people had the right to know about it.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that the Pemra chairman could not take such a decision on his own without consulting the Pemra board. After hearing the arguments of the counsel, the high court reserved the judgment.

Pemra had earlier defended the impugned letters and submitted that the trend of airing observations made during the court proceedings was a potential menace and if it was permitted to flourish, it could lead to chaos and confusion in society as court observations were flashed on television screens without any regard of the context, which misled the general masses who were left bewildered and in a state of confusion because of their lack of knowledge of sub-judice proceedings. Pemra submitted that the impugned directives were issued in the lights of the code of conduct and directions of the Supreme Court and requested the high court to dismiss the petition.