Sindh High Court Extends Interim Order Restraining Pemra from Coercive Actions Over Court Coverage
On June 6, the Sindh High Court (SHC) extended its interim order, restraining the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) from taking any coercive action against reporters from private television channels who cover court proceedings.
The case arose from Pemra’s directives instructing television news channels to avoid airing tickers and headlines related to court proceedings. The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) challenged the directive, arguing that it violates the constitutional right to information and freedom of the press. Pemra defended the directive, claiming it was necessary to prevent the misrepresentation of court proceedings and potential public confusion.
Pemra argued that the live broadcasts of court observations, often taken out of context, could mislead the public and create chaos. They emphasized that such reporting should adhere to the existing code of conduct and guidelines.
A division bench of the SHC headed by Chief Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, acknowledged Pemra’s concerns but maintained that any restrictions on media coverage of court proceedings fall under the jurisdiction of the judiciary, not a regulatory body. The court stressed the importance of upholding the principles of a free press and the public’s right to information.
The interim order, previously applicable only to private television channels, has now been extended to include journalists from the PFUJ. The court adjourned the hearing until June 27, giving Pemra and the PFUJ time to present their full arguments.
On May 27, SHC issued an interim order preventing Pemra from taking coercive measures against television reporters covering court proceedings until June 6. This decision came in response to a petition filed by journalists — Shahid Hussain, Mohammad Asghar, Irfan-ul-Haq, Amin Anwar, and Shaukat Korai — challenging Pemra’s directives that restricted reporting to written court orders and prohibited the airing of tickers or headlines related to ongoing cases.The petitioners argued that Pemra’s orders were an unauthorized amendment to the 2015 PEMRA Code of Conduct and violated constitutional protections for fundamental rights, freedom of speech, the press, and the right to information.
” 
” 
” 
” 
” 
