CJ IHC Athar Minallah asks whether Imran Khan wanted to hurt morale of the armed forces by delivering anti-military speeches
ISLAMABAD, Sep 05 (SABAH): The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday asked whether PTI Chairman Imran Khan wanted to hurt the morale of the armed forces by delivering anti-military speeches.
IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah’s remarks came during a hearing against the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority’s (PEMRA) order prohibiting television channels from airing Khan’s speeches live.
At the last hearing, the IHC CJ Athar Minallah had suspended the order till September 5 and observed that the regulatory authority “does not have the authority” to issue such orders.
Senator Barrister Syed Ali Zafar represented Imrna Khan during Monday’s hearing and a representative of PEMRA was also present to apprise the court of the regulator’s stance.
After hearing the arguments of both sides, the court wrapped up the case with directions that the PEMRA should follow the guidelines laid down by Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the matter.
The PEMRA ban came into place on August 21 after the PTI Chairman Imran Khan threatened state institutions and government officials with serious consequences.
PEMRA’s notification said that Imran Khan’s addresses are in open violation of the regulator’s rules and Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan. According to the regulator, the ban has been put in place under Section 27 of the PEMRA Ordinance 2002. The PEMRA notification cited Khan’s speech at the F9 Park, Islamabad as the reason behind the ban.
Apart from the ban, Imran Khan is also facing contempt of court proceedings for threatening Additional District and Sessions Judge Zeba Chaudhry during the same speech.
At Monday’s hearing, PEMRA’s lawyer apprised the IHC that the regulator issued a show-cause notice to delay the airing of his live speeches. In response, the IHC CJ asked why the regulator did not ensure that the rule of delaying live speeches was followed.
“Several responsible people issue irresponsible statements. You [PEMRA] have to follow the law and the court will not interfere in it,” the IHC chief justice said.
Moving on to Imran Khan’s lawyer, the IHC CJ asked whether he heard the PTI chairman’s speech in Faisalabad a day earlier — where he said that the government is delaying elections to appoint its choice of an army chief.
“Did you hear Imran Khan’s speech from yesterday? Do political leaders deliver such speeches? Will everything be put at stake just for the sake of a ‘Game of Thrones’?” the IHC CJ asked, making a reference to the popular television drama in which nine noble families wage war against each other to gain control over a mythical land.
IHC CJ Athar Minallah said that the armed forces lay their lives for the nation and in a case where someone is involved in illegal activity, everyone should not be criticised over it. “Hold yourself accountable for your actions. You [Khan] want to issue statements as per your wishes and don’t want the regulator to do its job?”
“Do you want to hurt the morale of the army by giving anti-army statements? Do you think that anyone in the army is not a patriot?” the IHC CJ questioned. He told Imran Khan’s lawyer that when a statement is issued in public, it has its own impact.
At one point during the hearing, referring to Imran Khan’s statements at the Faisalabad rally, the IHC CJ asked: “How can you say in public whether an army chief is a patriot or not?” Justice Minallah said that the armed forces personnel were getting martyred “and you [Imran] are bringing their morale down”. He also asked the PTI counsel as to why [his party] was harming constitutional institutions. “You will only invite difficulties as a result of your statements,” he said.
The recent statement, the judge pointed out, did not even fall under Article 19 (freedom of speech) of the Constitution. How could you avoid a ban when such statements are given, he noted.
He remarked that the court should not be expected to provide any relief in view of the things that were going on.
Justice Minallah asked the PTI counsel to undergo self-accountability, saying “do not expect relief from courts as it is the prerogative of courts.”
He stressed that every citizen was a patriot and no one had the right to “issue a certificate [of patriotism]”.
Subsequently, the court, in light of the rulings of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, asked PEMRA to regulate Imran Khan’s speeches and wrapped up the case.
In the petition, Imran Khan had contended that the ban was illegal, unlawful, more than its jurisdiction, and contrary to the fundamental rights under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.
“The Impugned Notice in effect has prohibited all news channels from airing live speeches of the former Prime Minister Mr Appellant based on spreading hate speech and making provocative statements against state institutions and officers. It is submitted that no hate speech or any such statements were made against the state institutions during his speech which entails such penal consequences as notified in the Impugned Notice,” it had stated.
The PTI chief had argued that under the PEMRA Ordinance, one-third of the total members of the watchdog were supposed to constitute a quorum for the meetings requiring a decision by the authority which comprised a chairman and 12 members [13 in all].
“It is submitted that according to the PEMRA’s own press release, the meeting of the authority at which the impugned order was passed was presided over by the Chairman and 3 Members namely, Chairman FBR Muhammad Irshad, Member KPK Shaheen Habibullah, and Member Punjab Nargis Nasir.”
Furthermore, the petition had said that the ban was also a violation of Article 19 of the Constitution which states: “Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression and there shall be freedom of press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of Court (commission of) or incitement to an offence.”
It had also accused the order to be “driven out of vengeance”, adding that PEMRA’s actions were illegal, invalid, and without lawful authority.
Hence, the petition had prayed that the watchdog’s ban should be declared illegal, without lawful authority.
Imran, who has alleged that Gill has been subjected to “sexual abuse” and “physical and mental torture” in custody, had lambasted police over the accusation and judge Zeba Chaudhry for allowing Dr. Shahbaz Shabbir Gill’s remand at a rally in Islamabad on Saturday.
He had threatened to file cases against Islamabad’s inspector general of police and deputy inspector general of police and declared: “We won’t spare you.” He had then warned the judiciary against its “biased” attitude towards his party, saying that it should brace itself for the consequences.
The PTI chairperson had warned judge Chaudhry that she would also face dire consequences. Subsequently, he was booked under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (punishment for acts of terrorism).