Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 1687 2017 SLD 1687 2017 PLD 48
Islamabad High Court
F.A.Os. Nos. 125 and 126 of 2016, decision Date : 20-11-2016
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Fawad Hussain Chaudhry and Faisal Fareed Hussain, ASCs for the appellants.Ali Shah Gillani for the respondents.

NEO TV / M/S. FUN INFORMATION NETWORK (PVT) LTD.VSPEMRA THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS

Law: Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002

Section: 20(c),29(6),30,30(1)(b)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 19,204

Law: Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Rules, 2009

Section: 15(1)

Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002)--.-- --.--Ss.20(c), 29(6) & 30--.--Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Rules, 2009, R.15(1)--.--Electronic Media (Programmes and Advertisements) Code of Conduct, 2015, Cls. 3(1)(i)(j), 4(10), 22 & 24(2)--.--Constitution of Pakistan. Arts. 19 & 204--.--Appeal--.--Aspersions against Judges of Supreme Court--.--Contemptuous material--.--Petitioner company was running a television channel and its licence was suspended for seven days and fine was also imposed upon it by authorities on account of casting aspersions against Judges of the Supreme Court during a talk show--.--Authorities also directed the anchor person to tender apology if he would appear on some other channel during those seven days--.--Plea raised by appellant was that information in question was already aired by another channel as news item--.--Validity--.--Appellant did not deny content of the show which led to issuance of show cause notice--.--Appellant could not point out towards any credible information justifying allegation against superior judiciary--.--Simply because another television channel had aired a news item was not a valid excuse to airing the same without ensuring that the information was credible and based on facts--.--Appellant must have realized that Judges or their representatives or Court officials could not come to talk-shows to defend themselves and it must not be taken undue advantage of by broadcast media or television anchors--.--For anchor person, to question on air, the appropriateness from a moral and political perspective, the alleged meeting between a sitting Judge of superior judiciary and a leader of political party, was tantamount to casting an aspersion on a member of superior judiciary of Pakistan--.--Such act was a violation of cl.3(1)(j) of Electronic Media (Programmes and Advertisements) Code of Conduct, 2015--.--Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority was empowered under S. 29(6) of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, to impose fine up to Rupees One million on a licensee who would contravene any of the provisions of Pakistan…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register