Amid mushroom growth of private television channels the Peshawar High Court recently declared that the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution is subject to certain limitations.

A two-member bench of the high court, headed by Justice Roohul Amin Khan Chamkani, pronounced an important judgment on May 5, clearly stating that ‘Article 19 of the Constitution does not provide licence to any person to make personal attempt on an individual to disgrace his dignity and reputation’.

The court made the observation while accepting an appeal filed by former chief secretary of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Khalid Aziz, against Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV). He had challenged a judgment passed by an additional district and sessions judge/trial judge on Jan 30, 2006 dismissing his suit for recovery of damages from PTV on account of defamation.

Allowing the appeal of Mr Aziz, the bench set aside the impugned judgment of the trial court and the suit of the appellant was decreed in his favour against the respondents, including PTV, to the tune of Rs700,000 as general damages, to be paid by the respondents in equal share to the appellant/plaintiff.

“So far, the constitutional protection with regard to liberty of speech is concerned, suffice it to say that no doubt, Article 19 of the Constitution guaranteed the freedom of speech, but it also imposes certain limitations,” states the judgment authored by Justice Roohul Amin Khan.

The bench ruled: “The print and electronic media are in no way vested with unfettered liberty and impunity to publish and telecast any material which is prejudicial to the interest of any person or harm or cause damage to reputation, honour and prestige of a person.”

It observed: “Any drama’s author or broadcasting agency is not free to telecast anything for promotion of the company or corporation or on the instruction of same quarter or according to its desire, but its freedom is subject to a moral code of conduct and such reasonable restrictions as may be legitimately imposed under the law in public interest and glory of Islam.”

The appellant, Khalid Aziz, had filed the suit for recovery of damages of Rs200 million against the defendants (respondents) for his defamation and mental torture by virtue of an Urdu drama serial “Saza aur Jaza” telecast by the PTV wherein the appellant had been shown as “Shakeel” with disputed character by showing him as a corrupt and cruel bureaucrat who has no respect for religion, society and people.

The appellant had claimed that from the inception of his service, he had gained recognition for his excellent performance of the obligations handed over to him from the higher authorities and was specially applauded by then prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1975 for his remarkable efforts in the Federally Administrated Tribal Areas. He stated that he belonged to a respectable and well- established family of Peshawar, which had been the pioneers in furniture industry, known by the name and style of M Hayat and Brothers, since 1921.

A reference was filed against the appellant/plaintiff in 2001 before Accountability Court, Attock, with the allegations that he by misusing his authority, obtained a contract for his family firm (M Hayat & brothers) of supply of furniture worth Rs15 million to the Primary Education Department, KPK, and that the said furniture was not supplied completely and whatever was supplied was of inferior quality.

The controversial play was aired on March 15, 2002 and it was dramatized on the lifestyle of a senior bureaucrat of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, whose family firm was pioneers in furniture industry and had got a NAB reference of Rs15 million arising out of a contract between his family firm and primary education department. The said bureaucrat was shown as a cruel person who had also contracted a secret second marriage.

The defendants/respondents in the suit were PTV, its managing director, its general manager of Lahore centre from where the play was telecast, producer and writer of the said play.

The defendants had contested the suit and denied the claim of the appellant and asserted that character of a bureaucrat depicted in the play was fictitious one and it did not by any stretch of imagination referred to the appellant.

They stated that the play merely unveiled a social evil and it did not in any way or manner referred to the appellant in particular.

Referring to different scenes of the said play and evidence on record, the bench ruled that it was of the view that the character of “Shakeel” as shown in the play referred to the appellant.

“Drama as one of the core genres of literature is the mirror of any society, because it documents what is happening and throws it back at the same society. In our opinion, the drams and TV plays shall be used as tools to sensitise the general public on matters that affect them on daily basis. It should not be used for humiliation of a person or a particular segment of the society,” the bench ruled.

The court observed that when an untrue statement or a scene was added even to an evil act of a person, the law of defamation would be attracted for his or her protection.

The bench also discussed defamation in religious context. “Islam provides to every citizen the right to the protection of his/her honour. In the famous sermon of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) on the occasion of the Farewell Haj, He not only prohibited the Muslims from taking the lives and properties of other Muslims but also condemned and prohibited any encroachment on their honour, respect and chastity.”

The bench ruled: “Under the Islamic law it is sufficient to prove that the accused said things which according to common sense could have damaged the reputation and honour of the plaintiff. Making false allegation against an innocent person is one of the meanest misdeeds that have been severely censured by Islam.”

Published in Dawn, May 15th, 2017