Summary: Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002)--- ----Ss. 3 & 9---Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Rules, 2009, Rr.5, 6(2), 8, 10, 12 & Schedule B---Cable TV---Renewal of licence fee---Petitioner was aggrieved of charging of fee on the basis of category of licence according to number of subscribers tabulated in Table VI, Schedule-B of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Rules, 2009 and not on the basis of actual number of subscribers---Validity---Petitioner could not pick and choose vertical columns of his choice---If any licence was categorized accordingly, then all the nomenclature that it followed would come with it---Notified Rules and the Table which provided for subscriber licensee were not in violation of any rights guaranteed under the licence to petitioner as licensee---Demand raised by Licensing Authority as per Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Rules, 2009 could not be suspended or annulled as the same was not solely dependent on the number of subscribers as urged by petitioner---Number of subscribers would come with the category of licence which was enjoyed---Petitioner chose to have a B-10 licence and number of subscribers would come as an inbuilt mechanism as a part of the Table VI to Schedule-B of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Rules, 2009---Petitioner had no choice but to take it or leave it and could not pick and choose as he desired within the Table---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Fahad Hashmi for Petitioner. Khaleeq Ahmed, Deputy Attorney General for Respondents. Khashif Hanif for Respondent No. 2/PEMRA. Date of hearing: 22nd August, 2024.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan —Art. 19 & Art. 204—Freedom of speech and expression—Restrictions on contempt of court— Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression but subjects it to reasonable restrictions, including those related to contempt of court under Article 204. Contempt includes actions that scandalize the judiciary, interfere with court proceedings, or prejudice sub judice matters. (b) Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 —Definition and scope—Prima facie contempt by public officials— Senator Faisal Vawda and MNA Mustafa Kamal held press conferences on 15 May 2024 and 16 May 2024, respectively, wherein they allegedly made malicious allegations against the judiciary, commented on sub judice cases, and scandalized superior court judges. These actions were prima facie in violation of Article 204 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. (c) Supreme Court Proceedings —Issuance of show-cause notices—Opportunity to explain allegations— Show-cause notices were issued to Senator Faisal Vawda and MNA Mustafa Kamal to submit their explanations/replies within two weeks of receiving the notices. They were directed to appear in person before the Court on the next hearing date. Notices were also sent to the Attorney-General for Pakistan to conduct proceedings under rule 7(2) of Order XXVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. (d) Role of Media and Regulatory Authorities —Directions to PEMRA and broadcasters—Contempt liability for broadcasting or publishing material— PEMRA was directed to provide recordings and transcripts of the press conferences, including Q&A sessions. Broadcasters and publishers were cautioned against broadcasting or publishing contemptuous material, failing which they may also be proceeded against for contempt of court. (e) Disposition —Matter adjourned—Further proceedings scheduled— The case was adjourned for further hearing to 5 June 2024. Respondents were granted the opportunity to present their explanations, and PEMRA and media entities were directed to comply with court orders. ----Cited Law: Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 19 & 204 Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003

Summary: Merged orders 2024 ---- These cases emerged from complaints filed by a group of journalists, including the then President of the Press Association of the Supreme Court, Mr. Amjad Nazir Bhatti. The complaints highlighted a disturbing trend of journalists being attacked and abducted, with allegations that these serious offenses were not being adequately investigated by the authorities.The bench noted that the matter had not been listed for a hearing for a considerable period. Upon reviewing the current status, Chief Justice Isa recognized that Mian Aqeel Afzal had succeeded Mr. Bhatti as President of the Association and expressed his intention to pursue the matter further. Similarly, ex-President Mr. Abdul Qayyum Siddiqui and another signatory, Mr. Amir Mir, represented by Mr. Jehangir Khan Jadoon, also affirmed their desire to continue with the case. However, Mr. Asad Ali Toor, one of the original complainants, chose not to pursue the matter further, despite confirming the accuracy of the attack on him but lamenting the lack of a thorough investigation into his FIR.The Court was particularly concerned about the allegations that journalists, including Asad Ali Toor, Matiullah Jan, Imran Shafqat, and Amir Mir, were targets of abduction and assault, with inadequate investigative follow-up. There were alarming claims that the assailants in Mr. Toor's case had identified themselves as members of an intelligence agency, suggesting possible state involvement or complicity in these incidents.In response to these grave allegations, the Court directed the Attorney-General to submit detailed, separate reports on the status of police investigations for each incident, specifically inquiring whether any charges had been framed. This directive aims to ensure accountability and transparency in the investigation process, with a two-week deadline set for the submission of these reports.Adding another layer of concern, the Court addressed complaints about the Federal Investigating Agency (FIA) issuing notices to journalists on grounds that allegedly involved maligning the judiciary. This action had sparked fears among journalists of potential arrests for attending FIA offices. The Attorney-General provided assurances that honest criticism of judicial decisions would not be criminalized and promised no coercive actions would be undertaken against journalists in such contexts.The Court also reflected on the broader implications of these incidents for press freedom in Pakistan, invoking a precedent that underscored the vital role of journalists in a democratic society PLD 2019 SC 318. The judgment cited the founder of Pakistan, emphasizing the need for journalists to be responsible, independent, and fearless in their critique of government and policy.The involvement of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) was solicited to provide assistance in this matter concerning fundamental rights, highlighting the legal community's role in safeguarding press freedom and the rule of law.The hearing is set to continue on January 30, 2024, marking a critical juncture in Pakistan's ongoing struggle to protect journalists and uphold the principles of freedom of expression and the rule of law in the face of challenges that threaten these foundational democratic values.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a former prime minister of Pakistan and chairman of a leading political party, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) to allow the broadcast/rebroadcast of his speeches and press talks on electronic media. PEMRA had issued a Prohibition Order on 05.03.2023, banning the coverage of the petitioner on electronic media. The petitioner appealed against the Prohibition Order, and the court suspended the operation of the order, referring the matter to a full bench to ascertain the appropriate court's jurisdiction. ----Issues: 1- Whether PEMRA's Prohibition Order was valid and enforceable. 2- Whether the petitioner was unlawfully censored on electronic media, violating the Code of Conduct for media channels. 3- Whether the petitioner’s right to media coverage, especially during the pre-election period, was being unjustly restricted. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --PEMRA's Position: PEMRA's counsel stated that no further instructions were issued to TV channels regarding the petitioner’s coverage. PEMRA made a statement that it would not hinder the broadcast of live or recorded programs concerning the petitioner or his political party. The court acknowledged the petitioner's claims that his media coverage was being censored. The Electronic Media (Programmes and Advertisements) Code of Conduct, 2015, mandates that media channels present information accurately and fairly, ensuring political programs are objective and inclusive. The court emphasized the significance of providing the public with accurate information about candidates and political parties, especially during election periods. --Significance of Free and Fair Elections: The court highlighted the importance of free and fair elections, noting that citizens must have access to multiple sources of information to make informed choices. It stressed that the government and its agencies must not prevent media coverage of political parties or candidates to ensure a fair pre-election environment. The court allowed the petitioner’s application to include additional documents and a USB in the record. It was concluded that PEMRA must not prevent media coverage of the petitioner, ensuring adherence to the Code of Conduct and democratic norms. ----Citations/Precedents: Dr. Shahid Masood and others v. Federation of Pakistan etc. 2010 SCMR 1849 Reference was made to this case to support the petitioner’s urgency and the need for media coverage in the context of upcoming elections. Academic Articles: "Elections Without Democracy" by Andreas Schedler, Journal of Democracy, John Hopkins University Press, Volume 13, Number 2, April 2002. "The Rise of Election Monitoring: What Makes Elections Free and Fair?" by J. Elklit and Palle Svensson, Journal of Democracy, John Hopkins University Press, Volume 8, Number 3, July 1997.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002:----Ss. 23, 37----Exclusive license for Cable Television Network under MMDS System----Validity----Petitioner was granted an exclusive MMDS license in 1995 and was subsequently allocated frequency by the then Pakistan Wireless Board----After legislative changes, PEMRA Ordinance, 2002, and Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, established new regulatory frameworks----Held, previous licenses were subject to renewal under the new laws, and the claim of a perpetual license was not sustainable----PEMRA had the exclusive authority to regulate broadcasting and distribution services, and monopolies in the media sector were not permissible----Reliance placed on Mag Entertainment (Pvt.) Ltd v. Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd (2018 SCMR 1807).(b) Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996:----Ss. 21(5), 21(6), 42----License continuation and frequency allocation----Petitioner failed to apply for the renewal and continuation of the license within the mandatory period after the enactment of the PTA Act, 1996----Held, licenses granted before the PTA Act were subject to revalidation and modification per new regulatory frameworks----Since petitioner did not comply with the renewal requirement, its authorization lapsed, and the allocated frequency could not be claimed in perpetuity----Reliance placed on Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) v. Southern Networks Limited (2023 SCMR 1348).(c) Frequency Allocation Board (FAB):----Allocation of radio spectrum----Scope of jurisdiction----Held, FAB was established under the PTA Act, 1996, to manage and allocate frequencies, taking over the functions of the Pakistan Wireless Board----Petitioner continued using the assigned spectrum without obtaining renewed authorization from FAB, violating statutory requirements----Frequency allocation was mandatory under PEMRA Rules, and no license could be granted without prior approval from FAB----Reliance placed on PLD 1998 SC 161 (Malik Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan).(d) Constitutional Law--------Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel----Applicability in licensing disputes----Petitioner contended that the government was estopped from revoking or modifying its MMDS license based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel----Held, promissory estoppel does not apply against legislative or sovereign functions of the State, particularly when statutory provisions mandate compliance with new regulations----Government agencies have the authority to amend or revoke licenses in public interest, and no perpetual right can be claimed----Reliance placed on Pakistan v. Salahuddin (PLD 1991 SC 546) and Landirenzo Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2013 MLD 601).(e) Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) Rules, 2009:----Ss. 6, 9(4), 23----Requirement for frequency allocation----Held, licensing under PEMRA requires frequency allocation from FAB as per Rule 9(4)----PEMRA cannot grant licenses unless frequency allocation is duly approved, and no entity can claim exclusive rights over the frequency spectrum----Rule 23 explicitly prohibits monopolies in media ownership, ensuring open and fair competition----Reliance placed on Mag Entertainment (Pvt.) Ltd v. Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. (2018 SCMR 1807).----Cited Cases:Mag Entertainment (Pvt.) Ltd v. Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd (2018 SCMR 1807)Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) v. Southern Networks Limited (2023 SCMR 1348)Pakistan v. Salahuddin (PLD 1991 SC 546)PLD 1998 SC 161 (Malik Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan)Landirenzo Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2013 MLD 601)----Disposition:Petition dismissed.Petitioner directed to apply for a fresh MMDS license under Rule 6 of PEMRA Rules, 2009, and obtain frequency allocation from FAB within 15 days.

Summary: Brief Facts --- ARY News aired a news bulletin on 19.01.2022 and 20.01.2022 related to Supreme Court proceedings.The appellant, a journalist, claimed her image was deliberately associated with false remarks, causing reputational harm.Appellant filed a complaint with PEMRA under Rule 8 of PEMRA (Council of Complaints) Rule, 2010. --- PEMRA Council dismissed the complaint, stating it didn't violate PEMRA's Code of Conduct and advised the appellant to seek defamation remedies elsewhere --- Held: The appellant's image was wrongly associated with news content. --- PEMRA failed to consider the fundamental principles of its Code of Conduct ---- Defamation Ordinance, 2002, is not barred by PEMRA Ordinance, and both can be applied independently ----- PEMRA's inaction and ARY News' conduct warranted nominal damages of Rs. 50,000 and a broadcasted apology ---- The appellant retains the right to seek further damages under defamation law.

Summary: The Supreme Court considered whether the Chairman of PEMRA had the authority to approve the recommendations of the Council of Complaints (COC) regarding the violation. PEMRA, established as an independent statutory body by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002, has the power to regulate electronic media in Pakistan.The Court examined the delegation of powers and noted that while PEMRA had the authority to delegate powers, it must be done in accordance with legally relevant and sustainable conditions imposed by rules. In this case, the Court found that there were no rules prescribing conditions for the delegation of the authority to approve COC recommendations. The Court emphasized that the delegation of such powers must be structured with conditions to control the delegate's exercise of those powers.The Court referenced a decision in a meeting held on 31.07.2007 where PEMRA delegated the power to approve COC meeting minutes to the Chairman without specifying any standards or conditions. However, the Court held that such delegation lacked the necessary formality and conditions prescribed by rules.Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the Chairman of PEMRA did not possess a validly delegated authority to approve the COC's recommendation. As a result, the petition was converted into an appeal, and the Court allowed the appeal, overturning the judgment of the Lahore High Court.

Summary: Facts:Mehtab Publication (Pvt.) Ltd filed a petition against PEMRA which was dismissed for non-prosecution on October 4, 2022. The petitioner submitted an application for the recall of the dismissal order and restoration of the original petition, citing lack of notification about the case's scheduling as the reason for their non-appearance.---Procedural History:The original civil petition was dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to appear for the proceedings. The petitioner subsequently filed an application seeking to restore the dismissed petition, attributing the non-appearance to an alleged lack of notification about the hearing date.---Issue:Whether the petitioner's application for restoration should be granted based on the claim of not being informed about the hearing date.----Holding:The application for restoration was dismissed due to insufficient grounds.----Reasoning:The Court clarified that the official procedure for notifying advocates about case schedules involves sending the cause list to the Advocate-on-Records (AORs) as per the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. Additionally, cause lists are informally made available in Bar Rooms and through SMS messages as a matter of tradition and practice. The petitioner did not challenge the adherence to these procedures in their application. Moreover, there was no evidence provided to show the absence of the case or the petitioner's counsel's name from the cause list, nor was there an explanation for the AOR's failure to appear despite being aware of the case scheduling. The lack of an affidavit from the AOR confirming the claims in the application further weakened the petitioner's position.

Summary: Petitioner secured through bid satellite rights for a channel. It is aggrieved that PEMRA has stopped and cancelled security clearance.

Summary: (PEMRA to consider the opinion of Councils of Complaints before passing any order of prohibition under section 27(a) of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 - the importance of tolerance under the Constitution - Scope and extent of freedom of expression and right to information - Elaboration of "commonly accepted standard of decency) According to the PEMRA Ordinance, the Authority has the power to prohibit any broadcast media or distribution service operator from broadcasting or distributing any program or advertisement if it is deemed against the ideology of Pakistan, likely to create hatred, prejudicial to law and order, disruptive to public peace and tranquility, endangers national security, or is pornographic, obscene, vulgar, or offensive. The Councils of Complaints, comprising eminent citizens, are responsible for receiving and reviewing complaints against programs and rendering opinions on them. They can recommend appropriate actions such as censure, fines, seizure, suspension, or revocation of licenses for violations. The Councils also keep the Authority informed of public feedback and responses to programs and advertisements. The Authority considers the recommendations of the Councils but may approve or disagree with them, providing written reasons for its decision. The Authority can pass appropriate orders or refer the matter back to the Council for reconsideration if necessary. The Court's interpretation clarifies that the Councils of Complaints have the power to review any aspects of programs, including violations of the PEMRA Ordinance, rules, regulations, or codes of conduct. The Court rejects the argument that the power of the Councils and PEMRA to review program content is concurrent, emphasizing the separate roles of the public regulatory body (Councils of Complaints) and the governmental regulatory body (PEMRA). It also highlights the need for obtaining the Councils' opinions before taking action under Section 27(a) of the PEMRA Ordinance. The Court addresses other arguments raised by PEMRA, concluding that the power of the Councils to receive and review complaints against advertisements should be read into the provisions, and PEMRA's power under Section 27(b) should also consider the Councils' opinions. In summary, the PEMRA Ordinance establishes a two-tiered regulatory system to regulate public fundamental rights of expression and information. The Councils of Complaints play a crucial role in reviewing program content, rendering opinions, and recommending actions, while PEMRA considers the opinions and makes the final decision.