Judge refuses to hear case over letter seeking to favour anchor

ISLAMABAD: Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) here on Tuesday while hearing ARY Communication’s writ petition, expressed his resentment over receiving a letter asking the court to decide the matter in favour of the petitioner Dr Shahid Masood.

Citing the reason IHC judge refused to hear this case any futher and referred the matter to the IHC chief justice to fix it for hearing by some other bench.  IHC judge remarked that nobody should think that he could decide this matter in favour of the petitioner after receiving such letter.

Legal counsel for ARY Shah Khawar Advocate appeared before the court and expressed full confidence in the bench and requested to continue with hearing. Justice Aurangzeb however turned down the request and referred the matter to IHC chief justice.

On August 22 ,legal counsel for ARY had concluded his arguments in this matter and today the counsel of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) had to offer his arguments.  On the last hearing of the case, the IHC bench had remarked that the TV anchors should behave responsibly while commenting on certain issues as Judges of the superior courts could not respond to certain issues due to their official position. 

IHC bench was hearing the matter where ARY Communication has challenged imposition of 45 days ban on its television programme “Live with Dr Shahid Masood” by (Pemra).

Pemra had imposed a ban on the said TV programme after its anchor Dr Shahid Masood had allegedly cast aspersions on the chief justice Sindh High Court in a June 22 programme. Pemra had also banned Dr Shahid Masood from participating in any other programme during this period.

Petitioner ARY Communication has challenged the closure of its programme before IHC while nominating Pemra and its counsel of complaints as respondents. The petitioner had filed an appeal against Pemra’s order dated August 10 under section 30-A of Pemra Ordinance 2002.

Petitioner ARY in its petition before the IHC has contended that Pemra did not hear its version and unilaterally imposed ban of 45 days. It further submitted that the respondents disregarded statement of the appellant without mentioning any lawful reason and failed to appraise the contentions raised therein whereas the stance adopted by the respondents, was considered appropriate without looking into its veracity and plausibility.

That the impugned order was passed without ascertaining the actual and factual position that is result of misreading and non-reading. By stopping the prime time show for 45 days regulating authority has indirectly imposed fine to the petitioner and it will cause loss of millions of rupees to the petitioner. The petitioner has requested the court to set aside Pemra’s order declaring it unlawful and void.