Press freedom subject to some restrictions: Supreme Court • 05.13.08
The Supreme Court on Monday directed the print and electronic media not to publish any news or telecast such programmes or discussions, having derogatory remarks about judiciary, saying that the freedom of speech was subject to some restrictions. A three-member bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Justice Mian Hamid Farooq and Justice Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, was hearing the suo moto case against a private television channel.The Supreme Court on Friday, taking suo moto action, had issued a contempt of court notice to a private TV channel for its report of an alleged meeting between Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar and Interior Secretary Syed Kamal Shah in which two senior judges of the apex court were allegedly also present.The court directed the print and electronic media not to publish any news item in respect of the person of a judge in any capacity without proper verification and prior permission of the court registrar. The TV channel’s bureau chief appeared before the court and sought some time for submitting his point of view, saying that it was a serious matter and he wanted to engage some lawyers for legal assistance.Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, while hearing the case, inquired as to who was paying for the advertisements being telecast pertaining to the judiciary. “Freedom of press does not mean a licence to insult anyone,” he remarked.
Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, who has been asked by the court to assist, said the case required interpretation of Article 19 and Article 204 of the Constitution. The power of media had been recognised, but intentionally scandalising an institution was a serious matter, he said.
At this, Justice Nawaz Abbasi remarked that the judiciary was being disgraced. He said that under Article 19 of the Constitution, media was not free to heap slanders. Action could be taken under the Article 204 of the Constitution, he added. RIUJ President Afzal Butt and PFUJ Secretary General Mazhar Abbas requested the court not to impose any kind of bar on the media, saying that it would imply that the step had been taken to stop media from projecting lawyers movement in future.Earlier on November 3, 2007, it was done by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra), but the Supreme Court should not do the same, they added. Dr Babar Awan, who was present in the court, argued that the interim order, which was under process in the court, would imply that media had been barred by the apex court.On this the court asked him to assist in describing the concept of freedom of speech and liberty of a person in Islam and the nexus of this concept with the Constitution. Earlier, the court had asked Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada and Waseem Sajjad for assistance in the case.Similarly, amicus curiae, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada requested court not to issue one-sided interim order. The court observed that it was a serious matter as judiciary was being disgraced and changed its order under process. The court ordered the Pemra and the Ministry of Information to produce records of programmes, news items published in the media pertaining to judiciary after November 3, 2007. The court adjourned the hearing till May 22.
Supreme Court here, ordered presenting all after Nov.3 records of TV channels and newspapers in the court. However, the apex court has withdrawn its order of restricting the print and electronic media from publishing or telecasting news items regarding judiciary without prior permission by the Court. Justice Nawaz Abbasi on this occasion in his remarks said that the judiciary was being disgraced and insults hurled at will. He said that under Article 19 of the constitution, media was not free to heap slanders. Justice Nawaz Abbasi said that action could be taken under the Article 204 of the constitution. Justice Nawaz Abbasi further enquiring said that who was paying the bills for advertisements relating to the judiciary. Supreme Court also ordered presenting all after Nov.3 records of TV channels and newspapers in the court.
Supreme Court cancelled graduation condition for contesting National assembly and provincial assembly elections. An apex court bench headed by Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar declared the Graduation condition for candidates contesting elections to the National and provincial assemblies invalid.The condition of graduation is in clash with the Article 17 and 25 of the Constitution, said the verdict announced by the larger bench of the Supreme Court. The detailed decision is expected in the next one to one and a half month.
The seven-member larger bench of Supreme Court starts hearing of the case against the petition about condition of graduation for parliamentarian for contesting election of Senate, National and Provincial Assemblies here on Monday.The bench comprising of Chief Justice of Pakistan Abdul Hameed Dogar, Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Justice Ejaz-ul-Hassan Khan , Justice Chaudhry Ijaz Yousuf, Justice Moosa K.Leghari, Justice Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery, Justice Syed Sakhi Hussain Bukhari.The petition was filed by Nasir and others under article 184 (3) of the constitution.
Muttahida Qaumi Movement founder Altaf Hussain said on Tuesday that several operations were carried to abolish MQM, several workers have been killed and many are arrested and yet Supreme Court has not taken any action to recover missing workers. In a telephonic address on the 24th Foundation Day of the party he said that his party wants to abolish hunger and poverty. He added that a conspiracy to engineer riots in Karachi was being hatched by unscrupulous elements and a huge quantity of arms was being distributed to gag the voice of the party. We want peace and do not want fighting but any attempt against us will be paid back in the same coin.The participants of the meeting replied in the affirmative when Altaf asked them whether they are ready to face future challenges. He thanked the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) and other combined opposition parties for nominating MQM Dr Farooq Sattar as their joint candidate for the next prime minister.He said the combined opposition parties got success in the Feb 18 general election from all the four provinces unlike the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz, which was only limited to the Punjab province. He criticised the remarks of PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif that he was inheriting a economically collapsed Pakistan. Why don’t you announce to play the role of the opposition instead of running after power? He questioned. Altaf said some political and religious parties were still spreading a negative propaganda against the MQM but it would not limit the struggle of the party, which wanted to eliminate feudal system from the country. “The MQM had been termed an anti-state party and even it was blamed for hatching a conspiracy to create Jinnah Pur. However, the establishment failed to stop the struggle of the MQM and today the message of the party was spreading in the whole country”.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday vacated its stay order against the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) and allowed the competent courts and officers to hear and decide the cases before them. Under NRO termination is allowed of all court cases and investigations against persons including members of National Assembly and Senate who had held public offices till October 1999. President Musharraf had promulgated the NRO on October 4, 2007 after protracted power sharing negotiations with Pakistan People’s Party Chairperson Benazir Bhutto. It paved the way for Benazir to come back from self-exile and take part in the general elections. However, five prominent personalities–Dr Mubashir Hassan, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Roedad Khan, Shahbaz Sharif and Tariq Assad–challenged validity and legality of the NRO in the Supreme Court. The petitioners argued that the acquittal of a person through withdrawal of pending cases, especially those in which conviction has occurred, by means of a legislative instrument, amounts to an unconstitutional interference with the judicial function and was a violation of the principles of independence of the judiciary as well as separation of powers enshrined in the constitution. A four-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, had heard these petitions on October 12, 2007 and stayed implementation on the NRO and held that any benefit drawn by any public office holder under this law would be subject to the final decision of the court. A five-member bench of the apex Court, headed by Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, took up these petitions and the stay order on Wednesday. Petitioners Dr Mubashir Hassan and Roedad Khan requested the court to adjourn the hearing as their lawyers could not attend the court on medical grounds.
A Supreme Court bench dismissed three petitions against National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) on Wednesday morning, as the petitioners Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Shahbaz Sharif and Tariq Asad did not pursue the petitions.
The Supreme Court will on Wednesday start hearing of five constitutional petitions, filed against the National Reconciliation Ordinance 2007. It may be recalled that President Pervez Musharraf issued NRO on October 4, 2007, just two days before his re-election on October 6, 2007. The NRO paved the way for late PPP Chairperson Benazir Bhutto to come back from self-exile and take part in the general elections. In return, Benazir did not oppose Musharraf’s re-election and her party’s members of Parliament abstained from voting in the presidential election. The petitions will be heard by a larger five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar. The other members of the bench are Justice Mohammad Nawaz Abbasi, Justice Fakir Mohammad Khokhar, Justice Ejazul Hasan and Justice Chaudhry Ejaz Yousuf. The impugned national reconciliation ordinance states that all court cases and investigations against persons, who have held public office till October 1999, will be terminated. It applies to members of the National Assembly and Senate, the two house of Parliament, and also covered the late Benazir Bhutto. However, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his younger brother, Shahbaz Sharif, cannot avail of the amnesty given under the NRO. President Musharraf had stated that political reconciliation and harmony alone could help the government tackle key issues like terrorism and extremism. Veteran politician Dr Mubashar Hasan, retired bureaucrat Roedad Khan, and one Tariq Asad filed the petitions in the Supreme Court immediately after the promulgation of the NRO in October 2007. They contended that the NRO attempted to subvert the letter and spirit of the Constitution by seeking to usurp the judicial power of the State by granting de facto “legislative acquittal” to persons being probed pursuant to proceedings initiated between January 1, 1986 and October 12, 1999.” They said the facility of immediate legislative acquittal has been granted in a discriminatory manner only to the holders of public office in terms of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The petitioners say the ordinance frustrates the clear intent of the Constitution, contained in Articles 62 and 63, regarding the ineligibility of any person, particularly the holders of public office to contest parliamentary elections if found guilty, amongst others, on charges of corrupt practice, moral turpitude or misuse of power or authority. The petitioners argued that the acquittal of a person through withdrawal of pending cases, especially those in which conviction has occurred, by means of a legislative instrument amounts to an unconstitutional interference with the judicial function and was a violation of the principles of independence of the judiciary as well as separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. It may be added that these petitions came up for hearing before this bench on February 6, but the proceedings were adjourned at the request of the counsel for the petitioners. Prominent constitutional experts Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, M. Ikram Chaudhry, Dr Farooq Hassan and Mohammad Akram Sheikh will argue. The court has issued notices to the Attorney General, Advocates Generals of Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan, Federal Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, provincial governments of Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan, and the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
The five-member Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, on Wednesday adjourned hearing on petitions against National Reconciliation Ordinance 2007 at the request of the petitioners.
RSS
