IN SHEER disregard to law and a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan the print and electronic media continue to highlight narrative of banned outfits especially those involved in recent spate of terrorist activities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and rest of the country. Within no time following occurrence of some recent acts of suicide bombings, the media starts splashing the claims made by proscribed organisations having no regard for law of the land.

Soon after a suicide bomber brought death and destruction in Mundabheri area by blowing himself up near the vehicle of Awami National Party’s leader Haji Ghulam Ahmad Bilour, the proscribed Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) claimed its responsibility. In that incident 18 persons were killed and around 60 injured. Initially, the television channels highlighted the claim made by a spokesman of TTP and later on the print media gave wide coverage to it. Some of the newspapers considered it their obligation to print full version of the statement of the TTP’s spokesman regarding the incident.

Prior to it, another devastating suicide bombing targeting convoy of the commandant of Frontier Constabulary (FC) in Peshawar Cantonment left 12 persons killed and 20 others injured. In similar manner the media aired and printed the militants’ version after that incident. Similarly, the responsibility of another incident of bombing inside the Judicial Complex on March 18 was accepted by an unknown organisation, Aafia Siddiqui Brigade.

Looking at the coverage given to proscribed organisations by print and electronic media it appears as if media have been treating these organisations like political parties instead of criminals involved in killing innocent men, women and children. This practice is not only limited to the national media rather the international wire services are in the forefront in glorification of militants. Following a recent bombing in Boston the wire agencies released the claim of TTP that it was not involved in the said bombing.

In past, the media outlets and journalists involved in glorifying militants took shelter behind the notion of “independence of media” and “media ethics.” They remained under the impression that giving coverage to militants’ narrative was their ethical responsibility as they had to highlight versions of all the parties in the conflict. However, after a last year judgment of the apex court it is now clear that such acts are not permissible under the law.

The Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, subsequently amended several times, prohibits glorification of proscribed organistaions. In 2001 section 11-W was incorporated in the said act for controlling the coverage given to banned outfits and it was declared a penal offence. Initially, the offence was punishable up to six months imprisonment with fine, but later on the sentence was enhanced up to five years imprisonment with fine.

The said section 11-W states: “Printing, publishing, or disseminating any material to incite hatred or giving projection to any person convicted for a terrorist act or any proscribed organisation or an organisation placed under observation or anyone concerned in terrorism:.(1) A person commits an offence if he prints, publishes or disseminates any material, whether by audio or video-cassettes or by written, photographic, electronic, digital, wall-chalking or any other method which incites religious, sectarian or ethnic hatred or gives projection to any person convicted for a terrorist act, or any person or organisation concerned in terrorism or proscribed organisation or an organisation placed under observation: Provided that a factual news report, made in good faith, shall not be construed to mean ‘projection’ for the purposes of this section”.

Sub-section 2 of section 11-W states: “Any person guilty of an offence under sub-section (1) shall be punishable on conviction with imprisonment which may extend to five years and with fine.”

A bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry had on Oct 12, 2012, issued an order in the case related to lawlessness in Balochistan. A senior advocate of the Supreme Court S.M. Zafar had appeared for Frontier Corps and highlighted the issue of coverage of banned organisation by the media.

“Mr. S.M. Zafar, learned counsel appearing for the FC, had placed on record sufficient material, perusal whereof suggests that whenever there is any incident of killing innocent persons both uniformed and civilian, the newspapers come forward to issue publication regarding the responsibility by different organisations which increases a sense of insecurity among the people of Balochistan,” the judgment states. The court observed that such publication was contrary to the provisions of section 11-W of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The bench also reproduced sections 11-W in its order.

“We are told that in this behalf restraint order has also been passed by the High Court of Balochistan, therefore, we confirm the order which has been passed by the High Court of Balochistan that in future the above provision of law shall be followed strictly both by the electronic and print media,” the bench had ruled.

In the presence of such a clear observation there is now no ambiguity left for the media organisations or the government agencies including the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority responsible for its implementation.

Despite clear pronouncement by the apex court the Pemra has not been fulfilling its responsibility in this regard.

So far the police investigators had not taken any step to ascertain from where the media organisations and journalists having links with proscribed organisations were receiving phone calls or electronic mails regarding claims made by the militants. Some of the legal experts are of the opinion that even a journalist highlighting such claims by proscribed organisations could be included in the investigation of the relevant case.