LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Wednesday ordered the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) to submit a report on the action it has taken so far to stop anti-judiciary speeches on the media.
The court was hearing the petition seeking initiation of contempt cases against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and other Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leadership for maligning the judiciary. The court subsequently directed PEMRA to submit a reply on why PEMRA acts strictly in some matters while showing leniency in others.
“People are talking against the judiciary, does this not warrant action from PEMRA?” the LHC asked.
The court observed that the regulatory authority did take action in some cases while remained totally silent in others.
“When PEMRA has a mechanism to block such contemptuous speeches, why didn’t it take action,” said the judge, questioning whether the authority was waiting for someone’s nod. It also asked why PEMRA has not taken any action on a number of complaints filed since June 2017 and directed the authority to submit a record of all complaints it received.
A transcript of speeches made by Nawaz and Maryam was also sought.
Justice Mazaher Ali Akbar Naqvi asked, “Why did PEMRA not prevent contemptuous speeches from being aired when a method to do so is available?”
“Were you waiting for somebody’s directions?” Justice Masood Jahangir added.
“PEMRA is not required to act only when a complaint is submitted. It also has a responsibility of its own,” Justice Naqvi continued. “This issue does not concern an individual, it’s a national matter,” he added.
He also asked PEMRA to explain whether it had powers to act of its own accord.
Advocate Azhar Siddique, who is representing one of the petitioners, responded that this was not so. He pointed to the double standards of PEMRA in acting against complaints. “PEMRA kept channels closed for two days over the Faizabad sit-in, which was not its job,” he argued.
The hearing of the case was adjourned till April 16.
The petitioner has argued that Nawaz and Maryam Sharif have been giving comments against the judiciary in their public speeches.
