LAHORE: A petition filed in the Lahore High Court argues that the Punjab province does not have the legislative competence to enact a law to regulate any aspect of broadcasting through electronic/digital media and other modes of communications.

The petition that assails the Punjab Defamation Act 2024 has been filed by journalists Benazir Shah and Mansoor Ali Khan through Advocate Asad Jamal.

The journalists challenged the law mainly on the ground that the core subject matter of the legislation is communication or speech, which is beyond the legislative competence of provinces.

The petitioners also challenged the law on the grounds for being in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Regulating broadcast outside provinces purview, plea argues

They contended that the impugned law will have a trans-provincial impact as it will prohibit inter-provincial communication especially the work of journalists as well as Vloggers and other citizen journalists earning livelihood by using the new media platforms such as YouTube.

The petitioners argued that the provisions of the law are extremely harsh and punitive in nature, which place unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression violating rights of due process and equality.

They asked the court to issue a stay against the operation of the Defamation Act and a declaration that the law is void ab initio, of no legal effect and ultra vires of the Constitution.

Justice Amjad Rafiq will hear the petition on Thursday (today) along with other pending petitions against the defamation law.

The judge has already linked any proceedings under “The Defamation Act 2024” to the final decision on the petitions challenging the law.

Election plea: An election tribunal comprising Justice Anwaar Hussain of the Lahore High Court on Wednesday sought arguments on the maintainability of an election petition by PTI’s incarcerated leader Aaliya Hamza against the victory of Hamza Shehbaz from NA-118.

Earlier, a lawyer for Hamza Shehbaz raised objections on the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioner did not attach the necessary documents and several pages of the petition lack signatures.

The lawyer contended that under the Election Act 2017, the hearing of an election petition should be conducted like a civil case.

The tribunal asked the counsel whether objections could be raised after the issuance of notices on the election petition. It further questioned whether general objections should be considered when serious allegations of the same nature were against an administrative body.

The lawyer argued that the election tribunal’s jurisdiction was very limited.

The tribunal noted that even the Supreme Court ruled that a civil judge should keep the Constitution in front while hearing a case.

“If a civil judge can decide by reading the Constitution, why can’t an election tribunal?” Justice Hussain asked the counsel.

The tribunal adjourned the hearing for further arguments on the maintainability of the election petition.

Hamza had secured 105,960 votes against 100,803 of Aaliya.

The PTI woman leader is behind bars for her alleged involvement in the May 9 riots.

Published in Dawn, July 4th, 2024