KARACHI, Aug 26: The petition filed by PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto on Oct 16, 1997, against her media trial came up for rehearing on Monday before a special division bench, comprising Justice S. Ahmed Sarwana and Justice Mujeebullah Siddiqui.

The petition related to the media campaign initiated by former senator Saif-ur-Rehman, the then chairman of the Ehtesab Cell, at the behest of Nawaz Sharif through government controlled electronic media — Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation and the PTV.

Counsel for the petitioner, K. M. Nadeem; deputy attorney general Nadeem Azhar for the federation and Azam Lone, counsel for the PTV, were present. Mr Jawed advocate for PBC was noted absent.

Counsel K. M. Nadeem referred to ground No 5-A of the amended petition, which says that “Respondents No 5 and 6 (PBC & PTV) by the nature of their organizational structures are designed to be public service institutions.

They are required to be fair, correct, impartial, and balanced in dissemination of information/news through broadcasting or telecasting. Particularly such  information/ news which is likely to affect the good name and reputation of a citizen.

“The two respondents, although controlled by the government, are by constitution and law required to act accordingly in case any adverse material/information is being broadcast or telecast.

“The affected party, on the basis of principles of natural justice and constitutional and legal guarantees, is entitled equally to comment or contradict the allegations, which opportunity has to be afforded to the affected party by the respondents. Such has not been done in the case of the petitioner who has been maliciously victimized selectively and singularly.”

He also drew the court’s attention to prayer clause G, in which the petitioner had sought court’s indulgence in prohibiting “the media-trial’ of the petitioner, directly or indirectly, without proof and without affording her due opportunity to comment upon or contradict the false and baseless allegations and to direct the respondents No 5 and 6 to be fair, correct, impartial and balanced by providing equal opportunity to the petitioner affected by the news as and when telecast or broadcast affecting or likely to affect the person and/or property of the petitioner.”

Counsel for PTV, Azam Lone, claimed that he had not received Rs5000.00 by way of costs as ordered by the court. The cost was forthwith paid by the counsel for the petitioner, K. M. Nadeem, who submitted that the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs10,000 by way of cost and deposited the same with the high court bar library as ordered.

With the consent of the parties, the prayer clause ‘G’ has been allowed with the direction that the PBC and the PTV shall remain balanced, fair, and impartial in their broadcasting and telecasting in respect of the petitioner.

With these directions the petition was disposed of.