Wali Muhammad Khoso & another (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan (Respondent)

ORDER SHEET

ORDER SHEET

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH HYDERABAD CIRCUIT.

C.P. NO.D-966 OF 2009.

DATE ORDERS

WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1. FOR

ORDERS ON M.A. 4166/2009.

2. FOR

ORDERS ON M.A. 4167/2009.

3. FOR

ORDERS ON M.A. 4127/2009.

4. FOR

KATCHA PESHI.

Petitioners present in person.

1.Granted.

2.Granted subject to all just exceptions.

3.Dismissed as infructuous.

4.The petitioners are practicing advocates. Through this petition they seek direction to the Federal Government and Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority to restrain the Managing Director of “Geo News” as well as Dr. Shahid Masood, Hamid Mir and Kamran Khan the anchors of the programmes “Mere Mutabiq, “Capital Talk” and “Kamran Khan Kay Sath” arrayed as Respondents 4 to 7 and Chief Editor of “Daily Jang” Respondent No.8 from continuing with their alleged media campaign against the President of Pakistan as according to the petitioners the abovenamed Respondents No.4 to 8 are biased against the President of Pakistan and are involved in his character assassination. It is also contended by the Petitioners that while the proceedings relating to N.R.O. were pending before the Honourable Supreme Court, the Supreme Court gave specific directions to the Print and Electronic Media not to print or telecast any news discussing merits of N.R.O. They submitted that in the popular Programmes “Mere Mutabiq, “Capital Talk” and “Kamran Khan Kay Sath” that have been telecast from time to time, a deliberate campaign has been launched to malign and defame the President of Pakistan and his political life was unduly criticized in spite of the fact that he was elected as President through a democratic process. They further contended that through their programmes, the Respondents No.4 to 8 have created political instability which would lead to takeover of the government by unconstitutional forces and set at naught the present democratic process.

5.When asked by this Court as to on the basis of which law the Respondent No.1 to 3 could be directed to take action against the Respondents 4 to 8 so as to restrain them from publishing and telecasting their programmes which are alleged to be biased and motivated with character assassination of the President of Pakistan, the petitioners submitted that the freedom of speech and expression that is guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution is always subject to restrictions that could be imposed under the law. They submitted that such freedom is to be regulated under the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002. However, the petitioners failed to point out any specific provision of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 that has been violated by Respondents No.4 to 8.

6.There is no denying the fact that freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution doesn’t entitle the print or electronic media to launch a campaign against any person which is defamatory or is directed to harm and damage his political life on baseless grounds. There cannot be any justification for doing so as this right is not absolute nor is exercisable in all circumstances. Article 19 does not give constitutional protection to a defamatory utterance nor the right to exercise freedom of speech and expression is exempted from the liability of libel and slander. However, to seek any legal relief against such an abuse of freedom of speech and expression, the appropriate remedy under the ordinary law is always available to the person who is so aggrieved i.e. he should have locus standi to initiate such proceedings. In the present case, without going into the question of locus standi, the petitioners have failed to refer to any specific statement that has been aired and published by Respondents No.4 to 8 in their respective programmes so as to enable this Court, to reach to an undeniable conclusion that respondents No. 4 to 8 have abused their fundamental right while exercising freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and have violated any restrictions of the law that regulates exercise of such a right. In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed in limine.

JUDGE

JUDGE