The court was hearing a set of identical petitions filed by the Independent Media Corporation and Independent News Corporation against the suspension of Geo News, Geo Tez, Geo Kahani and Geo Entertainment transmission by the cable operators.

Petitioner’s counsel Jam Asif submitted that the cable operators had no authority to suspend the transmission of licensed TV channels or change their position.

He said private cable operators did not comply with the orders of Pemra and hence the broadcast of Geo News, Geo Entertainment, Geo Tez and Geo Kahani remained suspended for the last four months. He submitted that blocking the transmission of Geo TV channels was a violation of the SC and High Court’s orders that restrained Pemra and cable operators from blocking or interfering with their smooth transmission.

The SHC’s division bench, headed by Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, asked the counsel for Pemra if the authority could cancel the licence of cable operators who were violating the law and what action had been taken against those who were not complying with the Supreme Court orders.

Pemra counsel Kashif Hanif submitted that they had issued show cause notices to cable operators who were not broadcasting the transmission of the Geo TV. He said the cable operators replied that they were not broadcasting the Geo TV transmission as the case was sub judice. He said Pemra would take an appropriate action against the cable operators after the court directive.

The court observed that the Supreme Court had directed the cable operators and Pemra and it should be implemented in letter and spirit. It further said if the orders were not complied with then the aggrieved parties could file contempt of court applications with the Supreme Court.

After partly hearing the arguments of the petitioners counsel, the court adjourned the hearing for September 10 with direction to repeat notices to un-served respondents. Ministry of Information, Pemra and cable operators including Syed Imran Haider Abidi of Home Vision Network, Kazim (Acting CEO) of Media Plus Communication, Ghufran Mujtaba of City Communication, Ikhlaq Ahmed of Karachi Cable Service, Mehmood Ahmed of City Communication Cable Network Sukkur, Ahmed Ali of A.A Cable Network Nawabshah, Skyline Cable Network, Mohammad Hussain of Track Communication, Zahir Ali of City Cable Network Hyderabad, Sheikh Asim Rasool of New Asia Communication and Nadir Shahani of Highway Communication were cited as respondents in the petitions.

The News

An SHC single bench on June 24 suspended the Pemra decision on suspension of the licence of the private news television channel till June 27. It, however, restrained the TV channel from telecasting any derogatory, defamatory or incriminating remarks against the superior judiciary and its former members.

Pemra on June 20 suspended the broadcast of ARY for 15 days and imposed a fine of Rs10 million for airing contemptuous programme against the superior judiciary.Additional Attorney General Salman Talibuddin submitted that single judge was not justified in passing the impugned order. He submitted that mala fide on part of ARY News is evident from the fact that even before withdrawing the petition from division bench of the court, the respondent filed lawsuit for obtaining injunction on same ground in which it failed to obtain interim stay from the division bench of the SHC.

He submitted that not a single reason has been given by the SHC bench as to why the order of Pemra has been suspended. According to him, the order is vague and sketchy and without detailed deliberation. He submitted that the respondent had filed petition and later withdrawn without seeking permission from the court for filing the lawsuit.

He said on the very face of it, the lawsuit was not maintainable. He said as interim stay has been granted; therefore, the instant high court appeal has been filed. He submitted that Pemra had issued three show cause notices to the ARY News but the respondent did not file any reply and subsequently the 15-day ban was imposed in addition to Rs10

million fine. He said despite suspension order of the Pemra, the respondent showed deliberate defiance and continued to telecast the transmission which made mockery of the regulatory regime. The court was prayed to vacate the SHC’s single bench order on June 24.SHC division bench headed by Justice Irfan Saadat Khan issued notice to ARY News for June 30.

The News

Justice Saeeduddin Nasir, who headed the single bench, passed this interim order till June 27 and also called comments from the Pemra and others.

The lawyers representing the news group, Anwar Mansoor Khan and Rehman Aziz Malik, submitted that following Pemra’s decision on June 20 the licence of the ARY News had been suspended for 15 days.

They also moved an application for urgent hearing of the lawsuit, submitting that on account of suspension of the licence, the plaintiff is suffering colossal losses.

They pleaded to the court to grant an interim order during the pendency of the suit, restraining the defendants from taking any action against the plaintiff or anyone connected with the business of the plaintiff pursuant to the decision of the Pemra.

Anwar Mansoor said that pursuant to the aforesaid recommendations Pemra issued a decision on June 20, without providing an opportunity of hearing the plaintiff or serving any notice of hearing.

He contended that it is a mandatory provision of the relevant law under which the Pemra was bound to serve a notice of hearing to the plaintiff, which should have been afforded an opportunity of being heard.

Express Tribune

A division bench headed by Justice Irfan Saadat Khan was seized with the hearing of the petition jointly filed by as many as 24 citizens, including students, teachers, and bankers.

They asked the court to declare the censorship and arbitrary ban on certain websites such as YouTube in Pakistan a blatant violation of the fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution.

The petitioners said that it was the duty of the government to safeguard the internet, a medium of expression, the print and electronic media, from censorship and ensure open and free access to it.

They said that censorship of video-sharing platforms like YouTube had a disastrous impact on Pakistani students, teachers, entrepreneurs and other professionals using YouTube for educational, religious, commercial or entertainment purposes. The PTA could ban specific web addresses instead of placing a blanket ban on YouTube, they added.

They submitted that while many countries, including India and those with a Muslim majority such as Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, the Maldives had banned the web addresses of an anti-Islam film, only Pakistan persisted with a blanket ban on YouTube to the detriment of its citizens and their fundamental rights.

They said that the government had also curbed citizens right to privacy as protected under Article 14 of the Constitution by blocking proxy websites.

They requested the court to direct the PTA to desist from any further violation of these fundamental rights and to immediately lift all such bans and censorship detrimental to the fundamental rights of all citizens of Pakistan.

During the hearing on Wednesday, federal law officer Aslam Butt sought time to file comments of the federal government.

The court adjourned the hearing till May 7 and directed the petitioners to place before it a list containing names of the websites which were informative and had blocked.

Probe ordered

Another SHC bench headed by Justice Sajjad Ali Shah on Wednesday ordered the city police chief to appoint an honest police officer to conduct an inquiry into the allegations of holding some citizens for ransom against a suspended police officer, Inspector Shafiq Tanoli.

The bench also directed the city police chief to supervise the inquiry and submit a report by May 6.

It directed that the SSPs concerned and SHOs of the Mochko and Mauripur police stations be examined during the inquiry and asked them to be present at the next hearing.

The bench gave these directions while hearing a set of petitions in missing persons case.

One petition was filed by Kifayatullah who told the court that the police had taken away his brother, Ghulamullah, and other relatives from Masroor Colony on Feb 19.

In another petition, it was alleged that Tanoli released six persons — Ghulamullah, Rafiullah, Saeedur Rehman, Aftab, Khawaja Alam and Faridullah — after taking Rs550,000, the bench had noted.

The bench cited another case, observing that a man and his two sons were arrested by Tanoli, who released one son after subjecting his father to torture. The second son, Mairaj, who was booked in a case, was released when no incriminating material was found against him in that case.—PPI

DAWN