The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday sought a report from the Ministry of Interior on the use of X as it heard a petition against the ban on the social media platform.
Access to X has been disrupted since February 17, 2024 when former Rawalpindi commissioner Liaquat Chattha accused the chief election commissioner and a top Supreme Court judge of being involved in rigging the February 8 general elections.
Rights bodies and journalists’ organisations have condemned the muzzling of social media, while internet service providers have also lamented losses due to disruptions. The United States had also called on Pakistan to lift restrictions on social media platforms.
Friday’s hearing was taken up by a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Aalia Neelum, who heard the petitions of journalist Shakir Mahmood and others.
The federal government, the Ministry of Law, the Ministry of Information and others had been made parties in the petitions.
At the outset of the hearing, the court sought a report from the Ministry of Interior on the functioning of X.
The court also sought to know how the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) worked. Additionally, the LHC summoned the relevant PTA officer along with the record.
“It should be revealed which government institutions are using X despite the ban,” Justice Neelum said. “It should also be told whether the status of X is legal or illegal.”
She said that all parties are obliged to file a response in the court.
Deputy Attorney General Asad Bajwa told the court that the PTA had banned X on the instructions of the interior ministry.
To this, Justice Neelum said the interior ministry should inform the court about the current status of X.
“If X is still being used despite a total blockage, who is responsible for this?” Justice Ali Zia Bajwa asked.
The chief justice re-enforced the statement, saying: “A report should be given on why X is being used despite the ban.”
The lawyer for PTA, Advocate Muhammad Afzal Khan, informed the court that X was being accessed through the use of VPNs (Virtual Private Networks).
The judges then directed the case be sent to a single bench for hearing.
Advocate Azhar Siddique, the petitioner’s lawyer, said the decision of the single bench could be challenged before a double bench.
The court then adjourned the hearing until March 20.
