reedom of expression and freedom of press are basic human rights.
The rights to free expression is an individual’s right to articulate their opinion and ideas without a fear of restrictions or censorship. The right to freedom of the press is provided by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. It says: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this right includes freedom to hold opinion without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of the frontier.”

Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, also provides for freedom of expression, press and speech to every citizen of Pakistan. Unfortunately, some v-loggers, YouTubers and social media activists have been interviewing under-trial prisoners during investigation in police custody. They then declare the suspects guilty of the offence before the pronouncement of a verdict by the competent court of law. Recording such interviews during an investigation and airing those on social media affects the fundamental rights to fair trial and fair investigation. It also influences the mind of the judges and of the general public.

Freedom of the press provided for in the constitution is subject to restrictions on account of public order, morality, decency and reasonable restriction imposed by law. The dignity of a man should not be violated under any circumstances. According to Article 14 of the constitution, the dignity of a man and the privacy of home, subject to law, are inviolable.

Such interviews of the suspects/ accused also affect general public’s trust and confidence in the judiciary. During such interviews, many of the accused confuse their guilt and commission of the offence. Acquittal of the said accused after the completion of the trial then prompts unfair criticism of the judicial system.

Most people are not trained in the appreciation of evidence. Some do not realise that the benefit of doubt must always accrue to the accused. A person accused of some crime cannot be convicted on the basis of a confessional statement until corroborated by other independent evidence.

Access to social media should not be seen as a licence to violate the dignity and reputation of other people. “The dignity of man under article 14 of the Constitution is an unqualified guarantee. In case of a violation of the said guarantee, the court will protect it. The right to life cannot be confined to mere living. It means a meaningful life which can only be with dignity. No person, in whatever capacity, is allowed to defame or disgrace any other person by diminishing, decreasing or degrading the dignity, respect and reputation of others.” (2023 PCrLJ 78.)

“That the media should not dilate on sub judice cases but only accurately report the proceedings. However, once the judgment is announced it can be analyzed, evaluated and critiqued,” (PLD 2018 SC 296.)

The role of police in allowing the suspect to be interviewed at police stations during police custody amounts to misconduct on their part. Disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against the relevant police officers. An FIR can also be registered against them under Section 48 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016. There is no provision in KP Police Act 2017, Police Order, 2000, or Police Rules, 1934, for recording interviews of the accused during an investigation. In the present context, it amounts to exploitation and the state has a duty under Article 3 of the constitution to end it.

Broadcasting of interviews of the accused recorded during investigation is a violation of Sections 19 (2) and 20(c) of the PERMRA Ordinance, 2002. It reads:

“Section 19(2): Licence to broadcast and operate.

No person shall engage in any broadcast media or distribution service except after obtaining a Licence issued under the ordinance.

“Section 20(c): Terms and conditions of Licence.

A person who is issued a Licence under this ordinance shall ensure that the programmes and advertisement do not contain or encourage violence, terrorism, racial, ethnic or religious discrimination, sectarianism, extremism, militancy, hatred, pornography, obscenity, vulgarity or other material offensive to commonly accepted standards of decency.”

Many channels operated by YouTubers and social media activists are not registered with the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. Their non-registration with the PEMRA and broadcast of the interviews is a therefore a cognizable offence. An FIR can be registered against them under Section 48 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. The broadcasts also violate Regulations 5, 6 and 7 of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority contents Regulations, 2012. The PEMRA is responsible for regulating the establishment and operation of all broadcasting media. Under Section 24 of the said ordinance, the PEMRA can restrain and prohibit the broadcast of such interviews.

The writer is an advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan based in Peshawar. He has an LLM in constitutional law