ISLAMABAD: Muttahida Qaumi Movement chief Altaf Hussain moved the Supreme Court on Monday against the Lahore High Court’s ban on his media coverage and described it as neither reasonable nor balanced; rather disproportionate to the alleged offence committed by him.

“The high court has proceeded to pass an injunctive order against the party leader and muzzle the media without giving any notice to the press and hearing arguments as to the bona fides of the petitioner,” says a petition filed by rights activist Asma Jahangir and Dr Khalid Ranjha on behalf of Mr Hussain as well as the MQM’s Rabita Committee through its senior leader Dr Farooq Sattar.

On Sept 7, the LHC had ordered the authorities to ensure a complete blackout of all activities of the MQM chief in both electronic and print media, including his images and videos.

The high court issued the order on three identical petitions seeking the ban for Mr Hussain’s alleged remarks against state institutions, including the army and Rangers.

The petitioners before the high court, the MQM chief’s petition recalled, had sought the ban since objectionable speeches and anti-state slogans did not fall in the ambit of the freedom of speech. Moreover, it said, the remarks made by the high court on free speech in relation to patriotism and treason had encouraged the respondents (petitioners before the high court) and other self-styled custodians of patriotism to publicise the matter to the extent of threatening the petitioners and their counsel.

Mr Hussain, who lives in London, requested the apex court to suspend the operation of the LHC order on the grounds that it was without any jurisdiction and lawful authority and violated the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. The high court had issued the order in haste and appeared to be under pressure by the commotion created by the petitioners, he said.

In his petition, Mr Hussain has named as respondents Advocate Sardar Ahmed Virk, who initially moved the high court, the prime minister through his principal secretary Javed Aslam and the secretaries of cabinet, interior, defence, law and information as well as the Senate chairman and National Assembly speaker.

The petitioner asked if the high court could pass an order without a fair trial by first deciding the questions of maintainability of the writ petitions, that too without hearing the parties whose fundamental right of expression and speech was taken away indefinitely.

He also asked whether a writ petition lay in a matter where alternative remedies were available or where the facts were disputed and the allegations were controversial; and whether the high court could issue directives to Pemra without giving the authority an opportunity to receive and hear the complaints of petitioners under section 8 of Pemra (Council and Complaints) Rules, 2010.

The petition said it had been explained in the high court that Mr Hussain had in three television interviews explicitly expressed regrets at the words which were misunderstood and also stated that the MQM believed in protecting the integrity of the country and its citizens but it had every right to protest against extreme violence and abuse of human rights against its members and others living in Sindh.

The petition said the MQM had every right to criticise the “agents of the state” who perpetrated human rights violations. “It may be pertinent to point out that the number of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in Sindh have increased and there is credible

evidence of connecting law-enforcement and security agencies to this trend,” it said.

The atmosphere created during the high court proceedings was posing threats to Mr Hussain and other members of the MQM as well as their counsel (Asma Jehangir), the petition said, adding that pamphlets had been distributed and press statements issued against the counsel, demanding suspension of her licence and membership of the bar.

The petitioners, it alleged, had also raised a hue and cry before the media declaring the counsel traitor and treacherous to the interest of the country.

Published in Dawn, October 6th , 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play