ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday refreshed/reenacted its August 13, 2012 judgment with the consent of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) under which no cable operator can block, obstruct, ‘disturb in any manner’ or change/reshuffle the number of a national channel on a cable network while Pemra has been made bound to act against cable operators involved in any such violation.

Pemra is empowered to cancel licences of such cable operators and confiscate all their technical equipment if they refuse to obey the SC orders and do not restore Geo News and all other Geo channels on their original positions as were on April 19, 2014, the day of the attack on Hamid Mir.

In its August 13, 2010 judgment, the apex court repeatedly made it clear that the position of channels could not be changed by the cable operators and any kind of obstruction or disturbance for the channel in any manner was a crime and only Pemra was bound to act against such cable operators which violated the law to frustrate the freedom of expression and the independence of the media. Important and relevant paras of paras of 2010 and 2012 judgments are as follows;

Order Dated: 13.08.2010

11. Such was then the importance attached to the obligations, inter alia, cast on the Cable TV Network operators offering the distribution of services and the importance attached to the undisturbed distribution of the said services by such operators. It would also be noticed from the said provisions that:

(i) It was the authority and authority alone which could prohibit any broadcast or any distribution thereof and that also not without an order in writing giving reasons therefor;

(ii) No TV cable operator had the authority to cease or suspend the distribution of any broadcast except for force majeure or with the prior approval of the authority;

(iii) The licence of any such operator causing any interference/obstruction in the distribution of any broadcast could result in suspension or even revocation of the licence granted to such an operator;’ and

(iv) Such an act of interference and obstruction is also a penal offence carrying a sentence of imprisonment up to three years or a fine of Rs10 million or both and such an offence is a cognizable offence authorising the police to arrest the accused persons without any warrant.

The reason for such weight being attached to the said business is not far to find as the same stems out of the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, expression of press as guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution and equally important, if not more, the right of every citizen to have access to information in all matters of public importance as guaranteed by the recently inserted provisions of Article 19-A of the Constitution.

13. In this view of the matter, we find that the act of the respondent operators of the cable TV Networks blocking/obstructing the transmission of ARY News and Geo News and the consequent denial of distribution service to the said channels and to the viewers who were paying the said operators for the said service, prima facie, was a gross violation of the terms and conditions of the licences granted to them under sections 20 and 24 read with the provisions of sections 27 and 28 of the said Ordinance of 2002 and thus attracted penal provisions of sections 30 and 33 of the said Ordinance in respect of not only the ones committing the said violations but also those abetting the same.

14. The Pemra must realise that the licence issued by it to a TV cable operator is a certification by it for all concerned that such an operator had committed and consequently stood obliged to offer undisturbed distribution of service to the broadcasters as also the viewers. And it is on the basis of the said certification by the Pemra that on the one hand, the said broadcasters entrust the transmission of their broadcasts to these operators and on other, the hundreds and thousands of viewers/subscribers pay their hard-earned money to the said operators to receive the said service. Therefore, besides being a legal, it is also a moral obligation of the Pemra, through its chairman, to ensure that the promised and the legally obligated services are provided by the operators not only to the broadcasters but also to the hundreds and thousands of the public who are paying money to the operators for the said service. Needless to add that any dereliction of duty on the part of the officials of the Pemra including its chairman, which appears lacking in good faith, could fall within the purview of abetment of the penal offences and the consequent punishment in terms of section 33 of the said Ordinance.

15. The role of the Pemra chairman in this entire episode, to say the least, does not appear to be above board. It was alleged in his face whatever was being done, was being done at his instance. He retorted by saying if he had so desired, the broadcasts of the channels in question would not be viewable anywhere in the world. Realising that his reaction was a display of the height of arrogance and utter disregard for law, the chairman withdrew his said words. Be that as it may, it was admitted even before us and admitted even by the information secretary that the blockade and closure of the two channels in question had evoked reaction not only nationally but even internationally which had caused embarrassment to us all even as a nation. The said blockade, prima facie, was not only a denial of duty towards the law, towards Pemra and towards the two broadcasters, but was also a serious breach of the constitutional, legal, moral and financial obligations of the cable operators in question to the hundreds and thousands of subscribers who had the right to information and who had paid for their right to viewership. The only reaction of Pemra/its chairman who are the custodians of the rights of the broadcasters and of the millions of viewers, to such a gross breach of constitutional and legal obligations on the part of the TV cable operators was the above-quoted innocuous kind of a letter of August 9, 2010 allegedly issued by the Pemra regional general manager at Karachi which was allegedly followed by a reminder of August 10.

17. Having thus examined the factual, the legal and even the constitutional aspects of the matter; the factually incorrect claims being made before us and the consequent legal violations, it is ordered, for the present, as under:

(i) Mushtaq Malik, the Pemra chairman shall ensure immediate distribution of broadcast services of Pemra licenced channels, namely, ARY News and Geo News even if the same involves strict legal action against the delinquent cable TV operators, if any;

(ii) The Pemra chairman shall personally monitor and ensure that the transmission of the broadcast of the said two channels i.e. ARY News and Geo News is continued to be aired without any hindrance or obstruction of whatever kind and shall submit a report in the said behalf on the next date of hearing under his own signatures;

(iii) The police officers of all the provinces including Sindh and Punjab are directed to ensure if at all any law and order situation is created which could hinder the transmission of the said two channels, they shall take immediate correctional steps including strict action in accordance with law against any person found causing such a hindrance;

(iv) The chief secretaries of the four provinces shall file their written replies to these petitions before the next date of hearing. Copies of which shall be handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioners as also to the learned attorney general; and

(v) The Pemra chairman and also the CEOs/licence holders of the four TV cable operators identified by the chairman as Messrs City Communications, Messrs World Call Telecom Limited Broadband, Messrs Karachi Cable Service and Messrs Media Plus Communications which caused blockade and obstruction in distribution of the transmission of the said two channels shall appear before this court in person on the next date of hearing and show cause why action should not be ordered to be taken against them in accordance with the law.