The IHC judge said if any cable operator was found violating the directions of the court or Pemra, immediate action should be taken in accordance with the law.The court also asked the Pemra counsel for the compliance of the order by 12:00 (midnight) on Tuesday.

Hearing miscellaneous petitions, the IHC bench observed that if Pemra is helpless in restoring the Geo transmission, its officials should express their inability to do so. The court ruled that the licences of those cable operators who are not airing the Geo transmission should be cancelled.

“The Geo TV transmission has been stopped by cable operators, while circumstances have been creating doubts about the role of a security agency. The court will protect all the constitutional institutions,” Justice Siddiqui observed.

The IHC bench was hearing the writ petition of the Shohada Foundation of Pakistan Trust (SFPT) that it had filed against ARY television for airing defamatory programmes against the superior judges. The IHC bench also heard the contempt of court petition that was moved by the Islamabad District Bar Association (DBA) through its counsel Syed Nayab Hassan Gardezi against ARY television for airing malicious content against the superior judiciary despite the orders of the IHC.

In the SFPT petition on June 11, the same court, through an interim order, had directed Pemra to ensure that “Mubashir allowed to conduct any programme on any TV channel till final decision of the instant writ petition”. The said order was later vacated by the Supreme Court.

Today the IHC bench directed ARY TV anchor Mubashir Lucman “to watch and examine his programme “Khara Sach” and make the statement as to whether it comes within the definition of decency, morality and not as yellow journalism. He was also directed to file his statement as to whether substance aired by him comes within the parameters of code of conduct of Pemra.

Justice Siddiqui directed to issue notices to All Pakistan Newspaper Society (APNS), Council of Pakistan Newspapers Editors (CPNE) and Pakistan Broadcasters Association (PBA) to render assistance with regard to the issue agitated through the petition.

During the hearing, Mubashir Lucman undertook to provide contents of the advertisement/other programmes containing the substance violative of code of conduct of Pemra, aired by different TV channels.

In the contempt of court petition of DBA IHC, the order reads, “Mr Mubashir Lucman, anchorperson of ARY news channel, has put appearance and submitted his non appearance from the court was not intentional but due to the fact that he was in UK in connection with routine medical check up. He is directed to file reply of contempt petition in writing before next date of hearing. Mr Sabir Shakir, Bureau Chief of ARY News, informed that Mr Salman Iqbal, Chief Executive of ARY News, has reached from USA to Karachi but his health was not permitting him to further travel to Islamabad, therefore, he could not appear before the court. However, he undertakes that Mr Salman Iqbal shall put appearance on the next date of hearing.”

Hearing the SFPT application, Justice Siddiqui observed that there is an impression that Mubashir Lucman is being provided with substance of his programme by some security agency. Addressing Mubashir Lucman, Justice Siddiqui said, “Do you see your own programme by yourself? See your own programme and tell whether it does fall in the domain of yellow journalism. It is because of you and some other channels that doubts have been created among general public about judiciary and different other institutions. You people have made judiciary a ping-pong ball.” Justice Siddiqui said Geo TV is not wailing in vain that its transmission is blocked at cable. He said everyone is after the state institution. “Everyone is aiming at Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Justice Jawwad S Khawaja,” he said. Justice Siddiqui further observed that the Judiciary will protect the sanctity of the state institutions. “We will see how someone would loose talk about the judiciary and the security agencies.”

Justice Siddiqui said the judiciary will inquire from all the journalistic bodies and television anchors whether there exits any code of conduct or not. “Upon misconduct we also take action against our own lawyers,” he further said.

The court after issuing notices to the above adjourned the hearing till September 22.Advocate Ahmad Hassan Rana represented Pemra, Kalsoom Akhtar Advocate represented SFPT and Syed Nayab Hassan Gardezi and Naseer Ahmed Kiani represented DBA IHC.

APP: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday ordered the cable operators to resume the transmission of a private television network that has been suspended from the last few months by midnight. A single judge bench of Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui ordered the authorities to suspend the license of those cable operators who were not broadcasting the transmission or changed their respective position. The judge remarked that the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) should ensure implementing the court’s orders in its true letter and spirit.

The News

The News

Counsel questions ATC’s jurisdiction to hear Farzana case

Numan Wahab

LAHORE: The defence counsel in Farzana case challenged the jurisdiction of anti terrorism court through a petition here Monday.

Farzana was stoned to death outside the premises of Lahore High Court on May 27. The Punjab chief minister, following directions of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, had ordered police to refer the case to ATC.

Nevertheless, defence counsel Mansur-ur-Rehman Afridi argued that the case did not fall in the jurisdiction of ATC. He submitted an application before ATC judge Haroon Latif Khan challenging the jurisdiction of ATC to trial the case.

He is likely to give his arguments in support of his claim on Tuesday and the court will most probably decide the jurisdiction of the case the same day.Talking with The News here Monday after submitting his petition, counsel Mansoor-ur-Rehman Afridi implored that he had submitted his petition on two main points:

Firstly, the incident had not taken within the jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. He claimed that the media had given wrong impression that the incident of Farzana’s stoning to death had taken place within the LHC jurisdiction. He stated that he had strong evidence that it had taken place almost half kilometer away from the court. He quoted a decision of the LHC administration according to which any untoward incident taking place within the premises of LHC would be referred to ATC. However, he claimed that while the incident had not taken place within the LHC limits it should be referred to session court.

Secondly, he argued that Farzana murder case was not a result of an instant act of terrorism but a pre-planned murder as a result of old enmity. He asked how a murder incident which was result of old enmity could be referred to the ATC.

Moreover, he claimed that DIG Investigation Punjab Zulifqar Hameed had already submitted before the LHC that Section 7-ATA did not apply to the instant case so it should be referred to the Session Courts. Mansoor-ur-Rehman advocate had also attached the copy of police statement before the LHC in his petition submitted before the ATC judge.

Farzana Iqbal was allegedly stoned to death by her father and two brothers outside the Lahore High Court on May 27 after she was about to appear before the LHC where she was likely to give her statement in favour of her husband Iqbal with whom she had eloped. Her family claimed that she had married Mazhar Abbas and contracted second marriage without getting divorce from her first husband Mazhar so her second marriage was illegal and un-Islamic.

Police has so far arrested five people in connection with Farzana Bibi case, including her two brothers Zahid Ali and Ghulam Ali, her father Azeem, her former husband Mazhar Abbas and her brother-in-law Jehan Khan.

Farzana Bibi’s elder sister Khalida Bibi had claimed that Farzana was killed by her paramour Iqbal. Later, on her plea, AD&SJ Abdul Qayyum on June 3 had directed the investigation officer (IO) to record the complete version of Farzana’s sister and bring it on record if she produced any evidence.

The News

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-260514-Counsel-questions-ATCs-jurisdiction-to-hear-Farzana-case

The court directed the DAG to get a specific answer from Pemra as to what action it took after receiving complaints.Eight complaints were filed by IMC against eight cable operators of Lahore, Multan, Gujranwala, Rahim Yar Khan, and Bahawalpur.

Shehzad Haider and Jam Asif Advocates appeared on behalf of IMC. They submitted that Geo TV had undergone the punishment of suspension and fine after which the Pemra ordered the cable operators on 26 June to restore Geo transmission to the old position; however, neither the cable operators complied with the order nor did the authority take any action.They urged the court to take notice of the matter and order Pemra to get its June 26 order implemented.

The News