The impact of political giants, whether due to a resurgence, government power addiction, or other biases, has historically led to attempts to undermine media integrity. During Zia’s era, journalists were notably suppressed, but the judiciary in Pakistan is currently performing commendably, with swift justice being delivered and positively reported in media headlines.
On May 21, PEMRA issued a notification banning court reporting, instructing TV channels to avoid broadcasting clashes and reports about court cases, and to refrain from publishing material based on comments, opinions, or recommendations related to ongoing trials. This move activated press organizations to challenge the restrictions.
The Islamabad High Court heard a petition filed by the Islamabad High Court Bar Association and the Press Association of the Supreme Court, arguing that PEMRA’s notification violated Articles 19 and 19-A of the Constitution. On July 2, the court reserved its decision on the petitions challenging PEMRA’s ban on court reporting. Chief Justice Aamir Farooq, who presided over the hearing, will announce the verdict next week.
Chief Justice Aamer Farooq announced that the verdict on the petitions filed by the Islamabad High Court Journalists Association and the Press Association of the Supreme Court will be announced next week. During the hearing, the petitioners’ lawyers, Advocates Riyasat Ali Azad, Azhar Siddique, and Adil Qazi, presented their case against PEMRA’s directive that restricted court reporting. Chief Justice Farooq questioned the necessity of such a ban, emphasizing that times have changed and the judiciary must adapt. He noted that there has been no incorrect reporting from the Islamabad High Court and that judicial observations can be reported, akin to the live streaming of public interest cases in the Supreme Court.
PEMRA’s lawyer, Saad Hashmi, defended the directive, stating it was issued to ensure reporting aligns with Supreme Court guidelines. However, Chief Justice Farooq highlighted the lack of complaints regarding incorrect reporting and urged PEMRA to show evidence of any misreporting that warranted such action. He warned against regressing to outdated practices and assured that adherence to law and regulations would prevent any court from stopping lawful reporting. Advocate Azhar Siddique argued against the directive, advocating for the continuation of journalistic work and the promotion of press freedom.
