Islamabad firing case: SC displeased with delayed response

1
243

 

 

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed its displeasure with respondents for not submitting a timely and comprehensive reply in the case pertaining to Jinnah Avenue standoff.

A three-member SC bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muahmmad Chaudhry heard proceedings of a suo motu case pertaining to Jinnah Avenue incident.

Interior Secretary Chaudhry Qamar Zaman, Islamabad Inspector General Police Sikandar Hayat and Islamabad Magistrate Aamir Ahmad Ali appeared before the court.

During proceedings of the case, the CJP stated that the respondent’s handed over replies to media before submitting it with the court.

Pointing out the Islamabad magistrate system, the CJP questioned why Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) did not ask the magistrate to stopping irresponsible coverage by private TV channels.

“The live coverage of Jinnah Avenue-like incidents are against the norms and cause panic among the public,” the CJP remarked while criticising the reporting by TV channels.

Interior Secretary Chaudhry Qamar Zaman said, “We have learnt a lot from Jinnah Avenue incident and we will act effectively in the future for such kind of incidents.”

The secretary said an investigation committee was probing into the matter.

He said PEMRA was responsible for the live coverage of Jinnah Avenue incident.

Counsel for PEMRA told the SC that all stakeholders of private TV channels had been summoned on August 30 over the matter, as PEMRA had asked all private TV channels on August 15 for not telecasting live coverage of Jinnah Avenue incident.

Justice Jawwad S Khawaja questioned why Islamabad’s administration did not ask Marghazar Zoo administration for a tranquiliser gun.

The SC then directed the information technology secretary to devise a strategy for PEMRA to stop coverage of such incidents and submit it with the court.

Subsequently, the SC adjourned hearing of the case until September 5 and sought reports from all respondents in the case.

1 COMMENT

Comments are closed.