Court rulings open to criticism: IHC

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court Friday directed the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) to satisfy it that the recently issued social media rules did not violate Articles 19 and 19(A) of the Constitution.

Chief Justice Islamabad High Court Justice Athar Minallah heard a petition filed by the Pakistan Bar Council challenging “Removal and Blocking of Unlawful Online Content (Procedure, Oversight, and Safeguards) Rules 2020” framed by the government under the “Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016” (PECA) and directed the PTA to consider the objections raised by the PBC.

Justice Minallah was irked when the PTA counsel attempted to cite the social media rules enforced in India. “Do not mention India here. If India suppresses freedom of expression, will we also do the same?” he asked.

“We are very clear on the fact that we will not allow violation of fundamental rights. Who recommended these rules and which authority approved it?” asked the judge, to which the PTA counsel said they had sought recommendations from the PBC.

The PBC counsel, on the other hand, pointed out that some of the rules violated the rights granted by the Constitution.

Justice Minallah observed that the social media rules that discouraged criticism also suppressed accountability and stressed that no law was above criticism.

Addressing the PTA lawyer, the judge said criticism was an important aspect of freedom of expression and should be encouraged.

“Why should one be scared of criticism? Everyone should face it. Even court rulings are subject to criticism once published, as long as it does not compromise the trial, and are not liable to contempt of court,” remarked the judge.

“Why should the court fear accountability?”

Justice Minallah reminded the PTA of the Constitution and democracy.

“Criticism is necessary for democracy. It would be detrimental to discourage it in the 21st century.” He said the objections raised by PBC are reasonable.

The bench directed the PTA to submit a reply and satisfy the court that the rules did not violate Articles 19 and 19(A) of the Constitution and adjourned the hearing till December 18.