How can channels malign judges if parliament can’t do it, asks SC

Court questions Pemra chief why licenses of TV channels not revoked for maligning judiciary; Absar says Mubasher Lucman fined Rs500,000; Justice Muslim asks does freedom of expression mean licence to malign any judge or his family and getting away with it by fine?; one may go to SJC but can’t malign judges; it’s a question of sanctity of an institution

By Jamal Khurshid

KARACHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said if parliament could not criticise judges, then who had authorised the social and electronic media to indulge in this practice?

A five-member bench, headed by Justice Amir Hani Muslim, was hearing the Sindh High Court Bar Association’s petition against the kidnapping of Sindh High Court Chief Justice’s son Owais Ali Shah and the social and electronic media’s vilification campaign against the judiciary.

The court asked Chairman Pemra Absar Alam as to why the licenses of TV channels were not revoked for maligning the superior court judges in their programmes.The court questioned the wisdom of Pemra’s Council of Complaints for imposing just Rs1 million fine on a channel for maligning the superior court judges.

The court observed that the superior judiciary enjoyed protection from criticism under the Constitution and inquired of Absar Alam why a channel found guilty of maligning the superior judiciary had been imposed the maximum fine of Rs1 million instead of revoking its license. Does freedom of expression mean a license to malign any judge or his family and getting away with it by paying Rs1,000,000 fine, Justice Amir Hani Muslim asked Absar Alam. Anyone could move the Supreme Judicial Council against any wrongdoing on the part of a judge but no one was allowed to malign judges, he observed.

Absar Alam told the court that Pemra had taken action against the channels in whose programmes contemptuous language was used against the superior judiciary. Alam said that the Council of Complaints (COC) decided the matter of license cancellation. If Pemra acted against any channel for violation of law, the high courts suspend that action, Absar Alam lamented, adding that when the apex court is moved against such a decision, the case is sent back to high court.

He said that Pemra issued notices and fined the channels involved in the vilification campaign. In the Owais Shah case, Pemra imposed Rs5 lakh fine on Channel 24 anchorperson Mubasher Lucman. 

The court directed him to place copies of proceedings initiated against the channels including show cause notices, responses received from the channels, personal hearings, if any, granted by the Pemra or CoC to these channels to submit their defence and the penalties/conclusions arrived at by the Pemra. The court observed that all material shall be placed before it by July 28.

Justice Muslim observed it was being noted that the vilification had been going on for a few months and those responsible need to be held accountable because this was not a personal matter rather the question of the sanctity of an institution. 

The PTA counsel informed the court that social media like facebook and whatsapp did not fall in the PTA’s ambit. The PTA acted whenever a complaint is received, he added. At this, Justice Muslim remarked it meant the PTA would act only if a judge filed a complaint with it.

The court also took an exception to the absence of chairman Pakistan Telecommunication Authority and directed him to appear in person and tell it about the action taken against the persons maligning the superior judiciary on the social media and other related public forums.

The court further directed him to apprise it whether such persons had been recommended for prosecution under the cyber crime law.The court issued a notice to the director general FIA to appear in person on the next date of hearing and submit a reply on the issue.

Justice Khilji Arif Hussain observed that the judiciary had to perform its duty without fear in accordance with the Constitution whether the government provided it with security or not.The court observed that the security matter had already been taken up by the Chief Justice of Pakistan on the administrative side.

The court observed that since Owais Ali Shah had been recovered due to the efforts of law enforcement agencies, the court did not want to interfere in the ongoing investigation.SHCBA’s counsel Khalid Javed and Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed submitted that the petition had not become infructuous after the recovery of Barrister Owais Ali Shah as one of the prayers of the petition required the court to give direction to the authorities concerned for the security of lawyers and judges and devise and implement a plan to improve the existing security of court complexes, judges, lawyers and their families.The court adjourned the matter till July 28 with direction to all respondents to file their respective comments on the petition.