2026 PLP 619 (CLC)

MOHAMMAD ABDUR RAHMAN, J.

This Appeal has been maintained, under Section 30-A of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 impugning a decision passed ' by the Council of Complaints, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, Karachi Region on 25 April, 2018. A. The Complaint.

2. A Compliant was on 21 March 2018 forwarded, by the Secretary to the Council of Complaints, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, Karachi Region, to the Appellant, contending as hereunder: " ... Subject: COMPLAINT Please find enclosed herewith a self-explanatory complaint along with CD, lodged by Mr. Muhammad Yosif Abbasi, Deputy Secretary (Staff) to the Minister against your Channel's programme "Amnay Samnay" hosted by Mr. Noor-ul-Arfeen Siddiqui for allegedly telecasting derogatory and objectionable remarks against Mr. Sohail Anwar Khan Siyal, Minister for Home Agriculture and Mines, Sindh.

2. You are required to submit your comments on the said complaint within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this letter that the same could be presented for the perusal of the Council of Complaint."

3. Thereafter, on 5 April 2018, after a period of 14 days had passed, a meeting was convened on 11 April 2018 at 02:15 p.m .at PEMRA Regional Office, Karachi to hear the compllant. The Appellant sent a letter on 9 April 2018, requesting for an adjournment in the following terms: " ... SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT SUMMON DATED 05.04.2018 Reference:No.(01)/PEMRA/RGM-KHI/COC/0624 dated 05.04.2018 Dear Sir, Due to absence of CEO his presence on the date and time is not possible neither a nomination can take place. Kindly grant exemption from this hearing for duration of two weeks, till CEO returns. Kind regards Sd/- Salim Raza Group General Manager"

4. The adjournment request was denied and on 25 April 2018, a decision was issued in the following terms: " ... The Council, after detailed deliberation, recommended the following in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 26(5) of PEMRA Ordinance, 2002, as amended by PEMRA (Amendment Act, 2007) read with Rule S(4) of the PEMRA (Council of Complaints) Rules, 2010 which has also been approved by the Competent Authority: The Council witnessed the clip and the complaint against the TV Channel Abb Takk in a program broadcast by the Channel about the Sindh Home Minister. The members felt that the anchorperson style and the words he used for the Sindh Home Minister was not in accordance with the rates of standard behavior. The Channel also feed to appear before the Council and only sent a letter to PEMRA by saying that they were not in position to appear for hearing. The Council did not accept the plea of the channel and imposed a fine of Rs.500,000/- (which must be submitted within fifteen days from the issuance of this letter) to the Channel for irresponsible behavior and objectionable way of presenting the program. An anchorperson must not act out of his personal anger against a person and the language he used for Home Minister shows his personal attitude towards him, The Council is also of the view that the channel's management must arrange proper, training of their anchors to practice journalistic norms while presenting program. Messrs APNA TV Channel (Pvt.) Ltd, (Abb Takk) is therefore directed to ensure compliance with the above decision in letter and spirit, under intimation to this office." B. Contentions on behalf of the Appellant

5. Appellant being aggrieved by the decision dated 25 April 2018 passed by the Council of Complaints maintain this Appeal. On 8 May 2018 the fine that had been imposed by the Council of Complaints was deposited by the Appellant before this Court and dicision dated 25 April 2018 passed by the Council of Complaints was suspended.

6. Mrs. Sana Q. Valika has entered appearance on behalf of the appellant and maintained that under subsection (5) of Section 26 of the Pakistan Electric Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance, 2002"), the jurisdiction of the Council of Complaints was as hereunder: " ... Section

26. Council of Complaints.- (5) The Councils may recommend to the Authority appropriate action of censure, fine against a broadcast or CTV station or licence for violation of the codes of programme content and advertisement as approved by the Authority as may be prescribed." She maintains that while the Council of Complaints clearly had the jurisdiction to "recommend" to the authority and appropriate action, instead of making a "recommendation," the Council of Complaints has imposed the fine on the Appellant itself and has additionally directed that compliance should be made in accordance with that decision. She contends that the decision dated 25 April 2018 was outside the Jurisdiction of the Council of Complaints as it only had powers to make recommendations to the authority and which therefore cannot be sustained. C. Contentions on behalf of the Respondents

6. When confronted with this situation, the Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan stated that as it is not disputed that the Council of Complaints has the requisite jurisdiction it may be considered, that the matter is remanded to the Authority so that it may take an appropriate decision. D. Order of this Court.

7. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the decision reported as Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) through Chairman and another v. Messrs ARY Communications Private Limited (ARY Digital) through Chief Executive Officer and another,1 and various Division Benches of this Court in the decisions reported as ARY Communications Limited through duly Authorized Officer v. Council of Complaints, Islamabad through Secretary and 2 others;2 JJAG Broadcasting Systems (Private) Limited through Duly Authorized person v. Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority a body corporate through Chairman and others3 and World Call Cable (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive Officer v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and another4 has considered the jurisdiction of the Council of Complaints to be recommendatory in nature. That being said there is no dispute that the Council of Complaint did have the requisite jurisdiction to review and adjudicate on the complaint. Under the circumstances and keeping in the mind that the Appellants were also not afforded a hearing, the order dated 25 April 2018 passed by the Council of Complaints is set aside and the Complaint before the Council of Common Interests shall be treated as pending. The Appellant shall, if they have not already done so, file their objections to the Complaint within one week of this order and whereafter the Complaint shall be considered and decided by the Council of Complaints at their next meeting after giving due notice of the date of the hearing to the Appellant. Consequentially, the amount paid into court by the Appellant in compliance of the order dated 8 May 2018 should be returned to the Appellants along with any mark up/profit earned, if any. subject to identification. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms with no orders as to costs. UN/A-93/Sindh Appeal allowed.