Lahore HC seeks PEMRA's reply on Imran Khan's contempt plea

LAHORE: Lahore High Court's Justice Shams Mehmood Mirza on Thursday sought a reply from Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) by June 13 on a plea filed by PTI Chairman Imran Khan seeking contempt proceedings against the regulatory body for not broadcasting his speeches despite the suspension of its earlier notification, Pakistan based The Express Tribune newspaper reported.

The petitioner had earlier challenged PEMRA's prohibition in the LHC, upon which Justice Mirza suspended PEMRA's prohibition order on March 9.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf chief Imran Khan had on April 1 filed a contempt plea in the high court through Barrister Muhammad Ahmad Pansota. He argued that despite the LHC's clear order in the presence of the counsel for the respondents, including Saleem Baig (Chairman of PEMRA) and Muhammad Tahir (Director Operations, Broadcast Media PEMRA), the order had not been complied with to date.

The petitioner argued that the TV channels are refraining from airing the petitioner's speeches due to threats from the respondents, which he brought to the attention of the court.

As per the petitioner, Khan's actions are contemptuous, illegal, and against the law and the Constitution. Barrister Pansota contended in the petition that the respondents' actions contradict Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan.

He argued that these actions are unlawful, without jurisdiction, violate the petitioner's fundamental rights, and have no legal effect.

As a result, the respondents should refrain from acting in a manner that is prejudicial to the petitioner's interests and contrary to the law and the Constitution, he added.

Moreover, the petitioner highlighted that the right to equality before the law, as guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, cannot be taken away or tampered with.

The petitioner has been treated unfairly and unjustly, he argued.

The petitioner further pleaded that the respondents have wilfully disregarded the LHC's judgment, which has diminished the prestige and honour of the court.

Their violation of the order has ridiculed the authority of the court, resulting in a loss of esteem for the court. Their acts constitute clear disobedience and should be punishable according to the Contempt of Court law, he stressed.

Barrister Pansota argued that if strict action is not taken against the respondents for their contempt of court, it would undermine the writ and the administration of justice. The petitioner then filed a contempt plea in the LHC, emphasising that the respondents' non-compliance with the court's order, along with their threats to TV channels, constitutes contempt of court, according to The Express Tribune.

The petitioner sought proper punishment for the respondents and highlighted the importance of upholding justice and the rule of law.