Summary: Background: Multiple petitions were filed by several journalists against the Federation of Pakistan due to numerous FIRs registered against them across various regions of Pakistan. The petitioners, who were journalists critical of government, claimed that the FIRs were filed to suppress freedom of expression. The main grievances included the registration of FIRs under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) sections such as 131, 153, and 505, among others, for their opinions and reports shared on social media and television platforms. The petitioners requested the consolidation of all FIRs under one jurisdiction to prevent harassment and sought transitory bail. -----Issues: 1- Whether multiple FIRs related to the same incident or cause of action can be consolidated and tried under one jurisdiction. ----2- Whether the registration of FIRs in different jurisdictions amounts to political harassment and an abuse of the criminal justice system. ----3- Whether the actions of journalists expressing opinions on social media or television can be considered crimes under the PPC and Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA). ----4- Whether the authorities must provide complete records of all FIRs filed against the petitioners. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that multiple FIRs for the same cause of action, even if registered in different provinces, violate the legal principle established in the Sughran Bibi case. After the registration of the first FIR, any subsequent FIRs are to be treated as 161 CrPC statements or supplementary to the initial case. The court ruled that registering multiple FIRs against individuals expressing opinions through media platforms, especially journalists, constitutes harassment and an abuse of the criminal justice system. The FIRs were politically motivated and intended to punish the petitioners for their critical views. The court clarified that not all cases of expressing opinions on media platforms should be considered crimes under the PPC or PECA. For an act to qualify under PECA, specific mens rea and actus reus requirements must be met, and mere criticism does not fall under these categories. The authorities were directed to provide the petitioners with all the information and records related to FIRs filed against them. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the constitutional protections of due process and the right to a fair trial must be upheld in these cases. The petitions were disposed of, and the court provided protection orders to the petitioners, preventing further arrests related to the contested FIRs. -----Citations/Precedents: Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595) Muhammad Bashir v. The State (PLD 2007 SC 539) Ch. Abdul Razzaq v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1998 Lahore 394) Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Balochistan (PLD 2019 Balochistan 27) Asad Qaiser v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Writ Petition No.5281-P/2023) Muhammad Azam Khan Swati v. Inspector General of Police, Balochistan (PLD 2023 Balochistan 85) Sandalbar Enterprises Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue (PLD 1997 SC 334) Sui Southern Gas Limited v. Federation of Pakistan (2018 SCMR 802) Protection of Journalists and Media Professionals Act, 2021 (Enacted 01.12.2021)

Summary: ---Quote: "Every citizen has a right of political and social justice, freedom of speech and thought. Print and electronic media are the means of receiving and providing such information to and from the people. Upon exercise of right of freedom of speech and expression, politically motivated FIRs are being registered for offences under sections 121-A, 124, 153-A, 505 of the PPC, without following the procedure, as provided in section 196 of the Cr.P.C., which is an illegality. The Government must tolerate the criticism of its political opponents being the chosen representatives of the people, instead of considering them as enemy of State." -----Background: ---- The High Court had dismissed his criminal revision for acquittal in a case involving allegations of conspiracy and incitement against the state. The FIR, No. 691 dated 09.08.2022, was registered against Shahbaz Gill and others, including the petitioner, under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) based on views expressed by Gill during a live telecast on ARY News. -----Issues: 1) Whether the Trial Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences under sections 121-A, 124, 153-A, and 505 of the PPC without a complaint by the Federal or Provincial Government as required by Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. ---2) Whether the registration of the FIR and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner were valid. ---3) Whether there was sufficient material to frame charges against the petitioner. ------Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Jurisdiction and Section 196 of the Code: The court emphasized that Section 196 of the Code mandates a complaint by the Federal or Provincial Government for offences under sections 121-A, 124, 153-A, and 505 of the PPC. The FIR was registered with the permission of the Secretary, Ministry of Interior, which did not satisfy the requirements of Section 196, as the Secretary was not authorized to delegate this power further. Thus, the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of these offences based on the FIR. -----Registration of FIR and Proceedings: The court found that the FIR was registered without adhering to the mandatory procedure prescribed by Section 196. The petitioner was not initially named in the FIR but was implicated later based on the investigation. The main evidence against the petitioner, a transcript allegedly obtained from the main accused, was contested and lacked clear evidentiary value. -----Material for Framing Charges: The court held that there was insufficient material to frame charges against the petitioner. The petitioner could not be held responsible for the actions of the main accused without prima facie cogent evidence. The court highlighted the misuse of authority and the potential chilling effect on media freedom, stressing the importance of protecting constitutional rights. ----Outcome: The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. The judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court were set aside. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner based on FIR No. 691 were quashed. The petitioner was acquitted from the case. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan; PLD 2016 SC 808. The State v. Raja Abdul Rehman; 2005 SCMR 1544. Zahoor-ud-Din v. Khushi Muhammad; 1998 SCMR 1840.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): ----S. 561-A—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 19—Freedom of Speech—Quashing of Criminal Proceedings—Scope and Limitations. The applicant, a journalist and YouTube content creator, uploaded a video that allegedly defamed Axact (Pvt.) Ltd. A private complaint was filed under Sections 499, 500, 502-A, and 505, P.P.C. before the trial court, which took cognizance. The applicant sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The High Court held: Scope of Section 561-A, Cr.P.C.: While a High Court should not ordinarily exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. unless alternate remedies under Sections 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. are exhausted, it may do so in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of court process or secure the ends of justice. Freedom of Speech (Article 19, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973): Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of a free society. Courts are duty-bound to protect this right against unwarranted encroachments. Restrictions on free speech must meet specific constitutional thresholds: undermining the glory of Islam, national security, public order, morality, contempt of court, or incitement to offense. Prima Facie Deficiency in Complaint: The complaint failed to establish how the video content defamed Axact or caused any damage. Additionally: No evidence of authorization from Axact’s board or general body to initiate criminal proceedings. The complainants were two unidentified employees of a subsidiary company without clear standing. The complaint appeared vague and lacked substantive evidence of harm. Unnecessary Litigation: Courts must prevent misuse of legal processes, especially where fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech, are at stake. The court observed that the complaint appeared more as a conflict of egos than a genuine criminal grievance and emphasized resolving such disputes through mediation instead of criminal proceedings. Disposition: Proceedings arising from the complaint were quashed under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. ----Cited Law: Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 561-A, 249-A, 265-K Pakistan Penal Code, Sections 499, 500, 502-A, 505 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 19 ----Cited Cases: FIA v. Syed Hamad Ali Shah (C.P. 1257 of 2020) Muhammad Farooq v. Ahmed Nawaz Jagirani (PLD 2016 SC 55)

Summary: Post Arrest Bail by Azam Khan Swati in FIR No. 185/2022 dated 26.11.2022 U/s 20 PECA 2016 r/w 131, 500, 501, 505, & 109 PPC P.S. FIA Cyber Crime Reporting Centre, Islamabad ---- Background: In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1644-B/2022, Muhammad Azam Khan Swati sought bail after arrest in FIR No. 185/2022 dated 26.11.2022. The FIR was registered under Sections 20 of PECA, 2016, read with Sections 131, 500, 501, 505, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) at the Police Station Federal Investigation Agency, Cyber-Crime Reporting Centre, Islamabad. The case was based on a complaint alleging that objectionable tweets were made from Swati's Twitter account, inciting mutiny and derogatory remarks about serving Army Personnel. -----Issues: 1) Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the charges under Sections 20 of PECA, 2016, and various sections of the PPC. 2) Whether the procedural requirements for investigation were followed by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). 3) Whether the petitioner's repeated offence disqualified him from bail. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Entitlement to Bail: The court noted that none of the offences charged against the petitioner fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., as the maximum punishment under Section 131 PPC was up to 10 years. According to the established principle, for the purpose of bail, the lesser sentence should be considered, thus entitling the petitioner to bail as a rule, with refusal being an exception (Tariq Bashir v. The State, PLD 1995 SC 34). ----Procedural Requirements: The court observed that the FIA did not follow the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) No. 5/2020, which required a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. and a verification process before arrest. The procedural lapse rendered the case one of further inquiry, thus justifying the grant of bail. ----Repeated Offence: Although the petitioner had a previous FIR (No. 109/2022 dated 13.10.2022), the court found that this alone did not fall within the exceptions established in the Tariq Bashir case. The respondents could seek cancellation of bail if the petitioner repeated the offence, but this was not sufficient to deny bail at this stage. ----Outcome: The petition for bail was allowed. The petitioner was granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The court noted that if the petitioner repeated the offence, the law would take its course, and the respondents could apply for the recall of the bail order. ----Citations/Precedents: Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) Kh. Soleman Rafiq v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 456) Asif Ali Zardari v. The State (PLD 2001 SC 568) Ms. Benazir Bhutto v. The President of Pakistan (1992 SCMR 140) M. H. Khondkar v. The State (PLD 1966 Supreme Court 140) Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Abdul Wali Khan (PLD 1976 Supreme Court 57)

Summary: Azam Swati has been arrested by FIA. Seeks direction upon the Interior secretary to compile data regarding all FIRs lodged against him regarding the same occurrences. (FIR No. 185/2022 dated 26.11.2022 U/s 20 of PECA 2016 r/w 131,500,501,505,109 PPC P.S. FIA Cyber Crime Reporting Centre, Islamabad) --- Background: In W.P. No. 4441 of 2022, Muhammad Azam Khan Swati petitioned for information on pending cases against him in Sindh and Balochistan related to the same occurrence of social media tweets against the Armed Forces of Pakistan. Swati sought directions for the Federation of Pakistan to provide this information, claiming it as his fundamental right for defense. ----Issues: 1) Whether Swati has a legal right to seek information on pending cases against him in other provinces. 2) Whether the Federal Government is obligated to provide such information. 3) Application of Articles 149 and 10-A of the Constitution in this context. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ----Legal Right to Information: The court held that there is no legal right for an individual to seek such information under Article 149 or the Rules of Business, 1973. Article 10-A provides the right to a fair trial but does not mandate the provision of information about pending cases. Federal Government's Obligation: The court found no obligation on the Federal Government to obtain information for the petitioner. Article 149 and Rules of Business: The court noted that these provisions empower the Federal Government to issue general directions, not specific to individuals seeking information about pending cases. -----Outcome: The petition was disposed of, with the court advising Swati to seek remedies in the relevant provincial jurisdictions (Sindh and Balochistan). The court suggested the development of a national system to link all police stations to manage information on FIRs, referencing the principles laid down in Sughran Bibi’s case. -----Citations/Precedents: The State of Pakistan v. Mehrajuddin [PLD 1959 SC 147] Fazal-E-Haq v. The State [PLD 1960 SC 295] Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commission [PLD 1973 SC 236] Masudul Hassan v. Khadim Hussain [PLD 1963 SC 203] Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State [PLD 2018 SC 595] Sh. Ihsanul Haq Piracha v. Mr. Wasim Sajjad [PLD 1986 SC 200]