Read on Twitter
So HRCP, PFUJ and a few highly respected and known rights activists and journalists filed a petition in the Islamabad High Court. Since people seem confiused (and I use the word VERY liberally here), this is what the petition says.
The petition challenges the Impugned Prohibition Order and Directive Order and Directive issued by Pemra (the respondent whereby "unconstitutional and illegal prohibitions have been imposed on the electronic media of Pakistan with respect to the dissemination of information"
The petition argues that the prohibition is a constitutional wrong and goes against Article 19A of the constitution. It says the prohibition is "clearly motivated by, and has the effect of, prohibiting the freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by Article 19"
The petition asks a few very important questions:
"What is the scope of the “information” to which access has been guaranteed as a fundamental right by Article 19A"?
"What is the scope of the “information” to which access has been guaranteed as a fundamental right by Article 19A"?
"Can the state, or any agency or authority thereof, obstruct access to 'information' by the public-at-large or the dissemination of such information by the petitioners as journalists and human rights defenders or by the electronic and print media in general?"
"Do the words spoken and the views expressed by a convict, a proclaimed offender or an absconder fall outside the ambit of the 'information' envisaged by Article 19A"?
"Is it the intent of the constitution to keep the public-at-large ignorant of the views and words expressed by convict, proclaimed offender or absconder even though such words and views may have the capacity to affect matters of public importance?"
The petition further asks if the print and electronic media's right to "express, publish, disseminate, relay and broadcast the views and words of any person, including a convict, proclaimed offender or an absconder, not an independent right" protected by Article 19 & 19A?
"Is a convict, proclaimed offender or absconder deprived of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution, including the right to express? Is the right to express not an inalienable right that may only be regulated by law to the extent permitted by Article 19?"
The petition says Pemra has "assumed the role of a censoring agency that seeks to curb cultural as well as political expression and speech" and, in doing so, Pemra has "travelled beyond its lawful authority and acted on a fundamental misconception as regards its statutory powers"
The petition says the prohibition is devoid of any legal basis evident from a reading of Sec 7 of the PEMRA Ordinance 2002, which says that prohibition may only be made w/ respect "to a particular broadcast/re-broadcast or the distribution of any programme or advertisement".
"What is not allowed is the prohibition of any speech based on the identification or classification of a person or a category of persons. "
The petition argues that Article 19 restrictions have to be imposed by legislation via parliament. Pemra cannot, "without enabling legislation, rely directly on Article 19 to impose the restrictions on freedom of speech permitted by Article 19"
All this is then followed by a lot of case law cited (both domestic and foreign). This is a very important, very well-drafted petition. Try and at least take out time to read this stuff before tweeting out inanities. Thank you. Apologies for the super long thread.
