| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5914 2024 SLD 5914 = 2024 PLD 135 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No. 2225 of 2022, decided on 2nd May, 2023.
Before Babar Sattar, J
Raja Rizwan Abbasi and Babar Manzoor for Petitioner. Muhammad Usman Warraich, Assistant Attorney General for
Respondents. Mudassar Khalid Abbasi and Barrister Syed Ali Asghar for PEMRA. Mazhar Yasin Khan Wattoo, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad. Tahir Farooq and Mohsin Hameed Dogar, Representatives on behalf of PEMRA.
Writ Petition No. 2225 of 2022, decided on 2nd May, 2023.
Before Babar Sattar, J
Raja Rizwan Abbasi and Babar Manzoor for Petitioner. Muhammad Usman Warraich, Assistant Attorney General for
Respondents. Mudassar Khalid Abbasi and Barrister Syed Ali Asghar for PEMRA. Mazhar Yasin Khan Wattoo, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad. Tahir Farooq and Mohsin Hameed Dogar, Representatives on behalf of PEMRA.
SHOUKAT ALI---Petitioner
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Interior, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others---Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 18,19
Law: Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002
Section: XIII,5,19,22,25,33A
Law: Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Rules, 2009
Section: 9(5)
(a) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 19---Freedom of speech---Right to dissent---Criticism of State and its policies---National security predicament---Rationale for free speech is at least threefold---One, human beings have agency and can distinguish between truth and falsehood---Two, in a marketplace of ideas where all sorts of desirable and undesirable ideas are available, truth eventually drives out falsity---Three, the standards for enforcing fundamental rights to equality, dignity and liberty evolve over time---As dissenters challenge existing ideas, social consciousness grows, the condition of human existence and rights improve and society progresses---It is in society's collective interest that right to dissent be upheld, even though critical ideas might seem unpalatable---It is in the State's own interest to tolerate ideas critical of it---Criticism of the State and its policies is a natural outcome of democratic system of governance and does not produce a national security predicament---National security is a meaningful concept and must not be bandied about in a trivial manner or used as a prop to defeat fundamental rights of citizens, including the right to free speech and information---Security of the State must not be projected by the State itself to be so fragile that critical speech or a level-playing field for the media would shake its foundation---Disagreeable or critical speech does not fall within the category of speech that is unprotected under Art. 19 of the Constitution---Right to freedom of speech as guaranteed by Art. 19 of the Constitution is not unconditional--Constitution itself carves out categories of speech that are illegal and unprotected.Abrams v. US (250 U.S. 616 (1919)); East and West Steamship Company v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1958 SC 41; Pakistan Muslim League v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2007 SC 642 and All Pakistan Muslim League through Chief Organizer Sindh v. Government of Sindh through Home Secretary and 3 others 2012 CLC 714 rel.(b) Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002)------Ss. 19, 22 & 25---License, issuance of---Eligibility criteria---Determination--Role of intelligence…