2018 PLP 28 (CLC)

C.M. No.1/Main Case JAWAD HASSAN, J.

Through the main Intra Court Appeal, filed under Section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the Appellant has called in question the legality of impugned order dated 13.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.7165/2017 by the learned Single Judge who dismissed his petition seeking restraining order against the Respondents Nos.3 to 5 for not preparing documentary film on the personal life of the deceased Samia Shahid and thereafter publishing the same in the electronic media.

2. The learned counsel for the Appellant inter alia submitted that the impugned order is against law and facts; that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that under the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 (the "Ordinance") the media is not supposed to give comments or prepare documentary film when a case is sub-judice before the Court of competent jurisdiction; that under the garb of this film the real culprits wanted to paint the case as per their own wishes; that the learned Single Judge has erred while giving findings regarding approval for publishing the documentary film as no such approval is required, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the record made available.

4. The record reflects that the Appellant has mainly sought restraining order against the Respondents that they may be directed to refrain from preparing the documentary film about the personal life of deceased Samia Shahid and further refrain from publishing the same through any electric media/channel till the final decision of the criminal case. Under Section 26 of the Ordinance read with Rule 18 of the PEMRA Rules, 2009, the Federal Government has established a Council of Complaints for receiving and reviewing complaints made by the persons or organizations from the general public. The entire procedure of dealing with the complaints is provided in the PEMRA (Council of Complaint) Rules, 2010 and complaints are filed under Rule

8. The said Section, for the sake of brevity, is reproduced hereunder and is as follows: "

26. Council of Complaints.-- (1) The Federal Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish Councils of Complaints at Islamabad, the Provincial capitals and also at such other places as the Federal Government may determine. (2) Each Council shall receive and review complaints made by persons or organizations from the general public against any aspects of programmes broadcast or distributed by a station established through a licence issued by the Authority and render opinions on such complaints. (3) Each Council shall consist of a Chairperson and five members being citizens of eminence from the general public at least two of whom shall be women. (3A) The Councils shall have the powers to summon a licensee against whom a complaint has been made and call for his explanation regarding any matter relating to its operation. (4) The Authority shall formulate rules for the functions and operation of the Councils within two hundred days of the establishment of the Authority. (5) The Councils may recommend to the Authority appropriate action of censure, fine against a broadcast or CTV station or licensee for violation of the codes of programme content and advertisements as approved by the Authority as may be prescribed."

5. In view of above, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that this Court cannot interfere into the matter when the Appellant bypassed the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.

6. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the Appellant has himself averred in the grounds of the Appeal (Ground-f) that as per the law of the land no approval is required for publication of documentary film by the media and besides this the media earlier had published the report about the death of deceased Samia Shahid repeatedly without getting approval from anyone.

7. In view of above, we fully agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge and do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned order which has been passed strictly in accordance with law, as such does not warrant any interference by us. Connsequently, the Appeal in hand, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. So far as the C.M. No.1/2017 is concerned, the same has been filed seeking restraining order against the Respondents. As the main case has been dismissed therefore, the instant application has become infructuous. KMZ/H-12/L Appeal dismissed.