Alert Sign Dear reader, online ads enable us to deliver the journalism you value. Please support us by taking a moment to turn off Adblock on

Alert Sign Dear reader, please upgrade to the latest version of IE to have a better reading experience


Correction: An earlier version of this news report stated that the Lahore High Court had banned speeches from Maryam Nawaz and Nawaz Sharif. However, it was learnt that the LHC decision only upheld the ban on anti-judiciary speeches as per Article 19 and 68 of the 1973 Constitution — it did not place a ban on any individual. The error is regretted.

The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday ordered that Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) to make sure that no TV channels air any "anti-judiciary speeches" in the future.

A three-judge full bench, headed by Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, and comprising Justice Atir Mahmood and Justice Chaudhry Masood Jahangir gave the decision — announced while hearing petitions against "contemptuous" speeches by PML-N leaders — which directly affects Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and other leaders from the party, all of whom have been involved in anti-judiciary tirades since the Panamagate verdict came out last year.

The court also asked Pemra to decide pending complaints against Nawaz, Maryam and other leaders of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) within 15 days.

Examine: What qualifies as anti-judiciary speech?

The court ordered Pemra to ensure strict monitoring of programmes to prevent any such content from being broadcast.

The court also rejected an application filed by Advocate A.K. Dogar on behalf of Sharif requesting that Justice Naqvi recuse himself from the full bench.

Advocate Azhar Siddique, who was representing one of the petitioners, argued before the court that Article 19-A of the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and the right to "fair criticism" to every citizen.

But Justice Naqvi observed that the constitutional right to fair criticism is conditional to law and regulation.

"It can't be that anyone out there goes about denouncing judicial matters and decisions in the name of 'fair criticism'," he remarked, adding that it would make sense for an expert or lawyer to comment on such matters but not everyone can be allowed to do the same.

Advocate Salman Akram Raja, the counsel for Pemra, argued that the petitioners were raising unnecessary objections against the regulatory body's authority.

He said Pemra had rejected an application against alleged anti-judiciary speeches on "technical grounds" using its authority.

"Should we not take away from this that [Pemra] allowed airing of anti-judiciary speeches by rejecting the application?" the bench asked.

"Pemra may have been made a minor error [of judgment] by rejecting the application," the counsel responded.

The court reserved its decision after hearing all arguments and subsequently announced a 15-day ban on speeches deemed to be contemptuous.

Following the Panama Papers verdict which led to Sharif's disqualification as premier, Sharif and other PML-N leaders have drawn ire for their criticism of the judiciary.

Multiple petitions have been filed in different courts against them over alleged contempt of court. Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and federal and provincial ministers of the PML-N have also been made respondents in the petitions.

In January, the Islamabad High Court had accepted a contempt of court petition against Sharif and his daughter Maryam for making speeches critical of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court, however, dismissed multiple contempt of court petitions against the ousted prime minister last month, saying on one occasion: "Commenting cleanly on a [court] decision is the right of every citizen."