IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
MR. JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA 
 
MR. JUSTICE KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN 
 
Constitution Petition No.105/12 alongwith CMAs-3795 & 3798 of 
2012, HRC No.23957-S/2012 and Const. P. 53/2012. 
AND 
Constitution Petition No.104 of 2012 & CMA 3464/12. 
AND 
Constitution  Petition No.117/12. 
 
 
 
Hamid Mir and another. 
 
 
 
 
… Petitioner (s) 
VERSUS 
Federation of Pakistan etc. 
  
 
 
 
… Respondent (s) 
 
 
For the petitioners: 
 
 
Hamid Mir & Absar Alam, in person. 
(In Const. P.105/12) 
 
For the petitioner: 
 
 
Dr. Tariq Hassan, ASC 
(In Const. P.53/12): 
 
 
Syed Safdar Hussain, AOR 
 
For the petitioners: 
 
 
Mr. Tausif Asif, ASC  
(in Const. P.104/12) 
 
 
(regarding obscene and objectionable material in media) 
 
For the petitioners: 
 
 
Sheikh Ahsan ud Din, ASC  
(Sh. Ahsan ud Din)(in Const.P.117/12): 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
For the respondent-1:  
 
Mr. Zulfiqar Khalid Maluka, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Nasir Jamal, DG & Rashid Ahmed (Secy.) and 
 
 
 
 
 
Muhammad Azam (Press Information Officer) 
 
For the respondent-2:  
 
Mr. Hasnain Ibrahim Kazmi, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Dr. Abdul Jabbar (Acting Chairman) 
 
For the respondent-3:  
 
Nemo. 
 
For respondent-3: 
 
 
Mr. Hasnain Ibrahim Kazmi, ASC 
(Sh. Ahsan ud Din)(in Const.P.117/12): 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR 
 
For the respondent-4:  
 
Mr. Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai, DAG 
(Sh. Ahsan ud Din)(in Const.P.117/12): 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR 
 
For the respondent-5:  
 
Mr. Jawwad Hassan, Addl.A.G.  
(Sh. Ahsan ud Din)(in Const.P.117/12): 
 
For the respondent-4&5: 
 
Syed Zahid Hussain Bukhari, ASC 
 
For the respondent-6:  
 
Nemo 
 
For the respondent-7:  
 
Mr. Naveed Ihsan 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Asif Hussain 
 
For the respondent-8:  
 
Nemo. 
 
For the respondents:1,2,6&8:  
Nemo. (Sh. Ahsan ud Din)(in Const.P.117/12) 
Const. P. 105/12 etc. 
2 
For the respondent,9&10: 
 
Mr. Jawwad Hassan, Addl. A.G. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Tahir Raza, Addl. Secretary Information Deptt: 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Hassan Raza Khan, Dy. Director, ACE. 
 
For the Province of KPK: 
 
Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, Addl. A.G. 
 
 
 
 
 
(In Const.P.105/12 & in Const.P.117/12) 
 
For the Federation: 
 
 
Mr. Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai, DAG. 
 
For the respondent-11 & Value TV: Mr. Yasin Azad, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Raja Muqsat Nawaz, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
For the applicants: 
 
 
Mr. Hashmat Ali Habib, ASC (CMA 4053/12 in Const.P.105/12) 
 
 
 
 
 
Nemo (CMA 3820/12 in Const.P.105/12) 
Mr. Arshad Sharif, Bureau Chief, DUNYA TV  
(CMA 3428/12 in Const.P.105/12) 
Mr. Ghulam Nabi, President Press Association SC (CMA 
4063/12 in Const.P.105/12) 
Mr. M. Hanif Awan, in person (CMA 3464/12 in Const.P.104/12) 
Nemo (CMA 3631/12 in Const.P.105/12) 
Nemo (CMA 4210/12 in Const.P.105/12) 
Nemo (HRC 23957-S/12) 
 
For M/s Vision Network: 
 
Mr. Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, ASC 
For M/s AURORA: 
 
 
Mr. Munir A. Malik, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
alongwith Faisal Siddiqi Advocate. 
 
For AAJ TV, Kashash TV, AVT,  
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, ASC 
DHOOM, APNA TV:  
 
  
 
For Express TV: 
 
 
Mr. Asad Kharl, (Reporter) 
For VIVE TV:  
 
 
Nemo. 
 
For PTV: 
 
 
 
Mr. Shahid Mehmood Khokhar, ASC 
For PUNJAB TV: 
 
 
Nemo 
 
For PEMRA:  
 
 
Hafiz S. A. Rehman, Sr. ASC 
(in Const.P.104/12) 
 
 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR 
(regarding obscene and objectionable material in media) Dr. Abdul Jabbar (Acting Chairman) 
 
For Airways Media:  
 
Mr. M. Bilal, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Babar Bilal, ASC 
 
For ARY: 
 
 
 
Nemo 
For Cable Operators:  
 
Dr. Amjad Hussain Bukhari, ASC  
For Pakistan Broadcasters: 
Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb, ASC 
(CMA 3521/12 in Const. P.104/12) 
  
(regarding obscene and objectionable material in media) 
 
 
For Cable Operators Association: 
Dr. Amjad Hussain Bukhari, ASC 
(in CMA 3464/12 of Const.P.104/12): 
Mr. M. S. Khattka, AOR 
(regarding obscene and objectionable material in media) 
 
For Indus Television:  
 
Tariq Ismail 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
 
20.12.2012 
 
 
Const. P. 105/12 etc. 
3 
ORDER 
 
Jawwad S. Khawaja, J. These constitutional petitions have raised important issues 
concerning the twin rights of freedom of speech and access to information protected by 
Articles 19 and 19A of the Constitution. Since all petitions before us concern similar or 
connected issues, these are being heard together. 
2. 
The brief particulars of the petitions are as follows: Constitutional Petition No. 53 of 
2012 has been filed by three petitioners: Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. which 
conducts business in the name of Geo TV Network; Independent Newspapers Corporation 
(Pvt.) Ltd. which conducts business in the name of Jang Group and News Publications (Pvt.) 
Ltd. which conducts business in the name of The News Group. Constitutional Petition No. 
105 of 2012 has been filed by two media persons, namely Hamid Mir, presently Executive 
Editor of Geo News, and Absar Alam, presently associated with Aaj News. Constitutional 
Petition No. 117 of 2012 has been filed by two senior advocates: Sheikh Ahsan-ud-Din, and 
Sajid Mehmood Bhatti. And Human Rights Case No. 23957-S of 2012 is based on a complaint 
filed by Syed Adil Gilani of Transparency International.  
3. 
The Respondents in the various petitions are: Federation of Pakistan, PEMRA, PTA, 
Bahria Town (Pvt.) Ltd., Malik Riaz Hussain, FBR, SECP, FIA and others. Notices were also 
issued by the Court to a number of media houses who have filed replies and are now party to 
these proceedings. Asad Kharral, a journalist, has also filed an application to be made a party.  
4. 
These petitions give rise to a large number of issues on which arguments have been 
heard over the course of a number of hearings. In our order dated 16.10.2012, we identified 8 
issues on which the hearings were focused. During subsequent hearings, some other 
connected issues have also emerged. At this stage it is useful to re-state the key issues and 
make certain prima facie observations. Documents which still need to be submitted have also 
been identified. This order is meant to enable the various parties to present their concluding 
arguments in an informed and effective manner and to ensure that necessary documents are 
available on record. 
I. Maintainability. Whether the petition raises questions of public importance in relation to 
the enforcement of fundamental right? If so, what are these questions and what fundamental 
rights are involved? Whether the allegations in the petition against the Respondents No. 4 & 
No. 5 and M/s Midas (Pvt.) Limited merit examination by this Court in its jurisdiction under 
Const. P. 105/12 etc. 
4 
Article 184(3) of the Constitution? And if so, what should be the extent, scope and 
methodology of such an inquiry?  
5. 
Most parties before us are in agreement that these petitions, as a whole, do raise 
questions of public importance with reference to the enforcement of fundamental rights, 
particularly the right to information (needless to say correct information) guaranteed under 
Article 19A and the right to free speech guaranteed under Article 19. As such, the jurisdiction 
of this Court under Article 184(3) is attracted.  
6. 
However, prima facie, some issues arising in these cases require detailed probe into 
facts. These issues raised in the petitions do not require the Court to exercise its extraordinary 
jurisdiction under Article 184; instead, it would be more appropriate for aggrieved parties to 
seek their legal remedy at some other competent forum. Some general principles in respect of 
these issues can, however, be settled at the conclusion of the hearing. 
II. Constitutionality of Federal Ministry of Information. Whether after the enactment of the 
18th Amendment to the Constitution, the legislative competence of Parliament extends to the 
print and electronic media so as to justify the retention of the Federal Ministry of Information 
and Broadcasting?  
7. 
Since this is an important constitutional issue any parties wishing to address 
arguments on the same may do so on the next date of hearing. 
III. Principles of Media Regulation. Is this a case where the Court should lay down the 
contours of the fundamental rights contained in Articles 19 and 19A of the Constitution in the 
context of the electronic media? If so, what are the boundaries of these rights in the context of 
the electronic media and are there any corresponding duties owed by such media to the 
general public?  
IV. Content Regulations and the Authority’s proper constitution. Whether the Content 
Regulations framed by PEMRA under the PEMRA Rules, 2009 are consistent with the 
fundamental rights contained in Article 19 and 19A of the Constitution and the mandate 
conferred by the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002? If not, whether it is appropriate for the Court to 
formulate Content Regulations or would it be more appropriate to constitute a Commission 
for this purpose? Assuming that a Commission is to be constituted, what should be its terms 
of reference and the manner and character of its composition? 
Const. P. 105/12 etc. 
5 
8. 
During the proceedings of this case, PEMRA issued a notification titled PEMRA 
(Content) Regulations, 2012. These regulations contain a number of affirmative obligations 
which are to be discharged by the licensees. However, the petitioners have raised challenges 
against the substantive as well as procedural validity of the regulations.  
9. 
Prima facie, at this stage a full review of the substance of these regulations does not 
seem warranted by the facts before us. In line with the common law method, it would be 
better that as and when any party feels aggrieved by the various provisions of the 
regulations, it may invoke the jurisdiction of the appropriate forum. The constitutionality of 
the provisions and the proper interpretation thereof can then be ascertained. To do so now by 
attempting to envision all future possibilities is not necessary. 
10. 
The procedural challenges lodged by the petitioners are more serious. The petitioners 
contend that the Regulations were formulated without the necessary consultation with all 
relevant stakeholders. Furthermore, the Regulations were notified in a period when the 
Authority was improperly constituted, since Dr. Abdul Jabbar, who claimed to be Acting 
Chairman and actually chaired the Authority’s meetings, had no legal authority to hold this 
office. Also, since he had notice of this defect, PEMRA may not be able to rely on de facto 
exercise of authority. 
11. 
The issue of the appointment process for key statutory offices is of the utmost 
importance in ensuring the integrity and independence of statutory institutions. Therefore, on 
18.12.12, the Court directed Mr. Hasnain Ibrahim Kazmi, counsel representing PEMRA, to 
produce the full record relating to the process whereby Dr. Abdul Jabbar claims to have been 
appointed Acting Chairman. The Court also directed Mr. Kazmi and the learned Deputy 
Attorney General, to present the record of the appointment process of all other members of 
the Authority. The Court also directed the DAG to present similar record for the appointment 
to the Board of APP and PBC, the major recipients of the budget of the Ministry of 
Information. Some documents in this regard have been filed. However, the complete record is 
still awaited and may be submitted within one week. 
V. Secret Funds. Whether the Federal Budgets have allocated from time to time to the Federal 
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting any funds that may be spent in its absolute 
discretion or that may be spent in secrecy without disclosing the purpose of the 
Const. P. 105/12 etc. 
6 
disbursements or the identity of its recipients? If so, did the said Ministry have a 
constitutional basis for such disbursements?  
12. 
Mr. Zulfiqar Khalid Maluka, ASC, representing the Ministry of Information and 
Broadcasting addressed the court about the details of the Ministry’s budget. He apprised the 
Court that the bulk of the Ministry’s budget is spent on statutory corporations: Pakistan 
Broadcasting Corporation, Associated Press of Pakistan, Press Council of Pakistan and a few 
other. He contended that there were only two – “Special Publicity Fund” and “Secret Service 
Fund” –  which contain a total of around Rs. 14.3 crore in FY-2011-2012, details of which 
could not be disclosed during the course a public hearing. The Court clarified that in line with 
Article 19A, it is not inclined to accept this argument. At this point, Mohammad Azam, the 
Principal Information Officer, Ministry of Information, stated that the Secretary Information 
is willing to disclose the details of these funds to the Court by submitting the details in sealed 
cover.  
13. 
Prima facie, while the Ministry may claim privilege from making public disclosure of 
certain parts of its budget, such privilege is not automatically available to the Government. It 
must be claimed from the Court. Information for which secrecy is sought must be clearly 
marked and the reasons for seeking secrecy must also be clearly stated. The Court can then 
make a determination on this point in line with the law and the Constitution. 
VI. Fiscal Misappropriation. On 18.12.12, Mr. Asad Kharal, contended that the budgets of 27 
other Ministries also contain secret funds similar to the ones which are in place in the 
Ministry of Information. This is a disturbing disclosure since secrets funds may potentially be 
a tool for undermining the right of citizens protected under Articles 19 and 19A. Since all 
public authorities are fiduciaries of the public and receive their funds from the public, the 
Auditor General or other constitutionally authorized bodies must have access to ensure 
transparency in the manner in which they spend the allocated budget.  
VII. Commission. Some petitioners urge the Court to appoint a Commission which may 
examine issues IV, V and VI at length and propose appropriate content regulations, and 
record findings about the manner in which government advertisement spending is being 
made and determine whether it is in line with Article 19A. While we do not find it 
appropriate to give any finding on this issue at the present stage, the parties pressing this 
point are directed to suggest Terms of Reference of the proposed Commission.  
Const. P. 105/12 etc. 
7 
14. 
The case is now fixed for hearing on 9.1.2013. Within 7 days from today all documents 
specified in this order, or anything else which the parties deem necessary for determination of 
the above-mentioned issues, must be filed in Court so that the hearing of this case can be 
concluded. 
15. 
Having gone through the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 and the various notifications 
presented in Court including Notifications dated 27.9.2008, 27.7.2009 and 14.5.2011 and also 
having heard the learned counsel on the question of Dr. Abdul Jabbar purporting to represent 
himself and to act as Chairman PEMRA, we are prima facie, of the view that Dr. Abdul Jabbar 
has no authority to act as, or to represent himself as Chairman or acting Chairman PEMRA. 
This aspect was also highlighted in our order dated 17.9.2012 passed in Constitution Petition 
No. 104 of 2012, in the following terms:- 
 “It has also been pointed out to us that there is no permanent Chairman of 
PEMRA and incumbent is an acting Chairman for the last about two years. 
Relevant provisions of PEMRA i.e. section 6 of the PEMRA does not contain 
any such provision, however, it is understandable that temporarily for a shortest 
possible period acting Chairman can be appointed to find suitable person to be 
appointed as permanent Chairman. In this behalf notice be issued to the 
Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to appear and explain on 
behalf of the Government as to why the permanent Chairman has not been 
appointed so far”.  
 
16. 
Despite the above, no Chairman of PEMRA has been appointed in accordance with 
the provisions of PEMRA Ordinance and particularly section 6 thereof. Consequently, Dr. 
Abdul Jabbar is restrained from acting as or representing himself as Chairman or acting 
Chairman of PEMRA. The questions as to the validity of acts taken in the name of PEMRA 
during the period starting 13.05.2011 when it had no Chairman, will be considered on the 
next date of hearing.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
20.12.2012. 
A. Rehman 
Not approved for reporting.