IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday 
 
 
 
 
CONSTITUTION PETITIONS NO.46 & 47 OF 2010 
 
 
Dr. Shahid Masood. 
 
…in Const.P.46/2010 
Muhammad Farhan etc. 
…in Const.P.47/2010 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
…PETITIONERS. 
 
VERSUS 
Federation of Pakistan and others. 
 
 
…RESPONDENTS. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   (in both petitions) 
… 
 
For the petitioners: 
 
Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
a/w petitioner. 
 
On Court’s notice: 
 
Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, Attorney General. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Agha Tariq Mehmood, DAG. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Qamar Zaman, Secy. M/o Interior. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mansoor Sohail, Act. Secy. Information. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mushtaq Malik, Chairman, PEMRA. 
 
 
 
 
 
Nayyar Nasir Hayat, Legal Advisor & 
 
 
 
 
 
Irfan, D.G. (License). 
 
Date of hearing:  
 
13.08.2010. 
… 
ORDER 
 
 
 
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ.- These two 
petitions, one filed by the President of ARY Digital Network and the 
other by some members of the public who claim to be keen viewers 
of News Channels, especially GEO News, invoke the extra-ordinary 
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution; 
complain of a breach of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed not only 
to them but also to the public at large caused by the respondents 
Const. Petitions No.46 & 47/2010 
-: 2 :- 
through closure and suspension of broadcasting and transmission of 
at least two T.V. Channels i.e. ARY and GEO.. It was further 
complained that it had been so done by the respondent licensed T.V. 
Cable Operators, at the instance of and in collusion with some of the 
other respondents for reasons which were motivated by personal 
malice and for extra-legal reasons. 
2. 
 
Having heard Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, the 
learned Sr. ASC appearing for the petitioners, we directed 
appearance of the Chairman of the Pakistan Electronic Media 
Regulatory Authority (hereinafter called the PEMRA), the Secretary 
of the Ministry of Information and the Interior Secretary of Pakistan. 
Notice was also issued to the learned Attorney General to be of 
assistance in the matter. 
3. 
 
On entering appearance, the said Chairman denied any 
closure or blockade of the distribution of the said two T.V. channels 
and submitted that both the said channels were being aired without 
any obstruction or hindrance. The said claim of the Chairman was 
immediately repudiated; controverted and contradicted by Mr. 
Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC whereupon the Chairman 
changed his stance to say that no one had brought any denial of 
distribution service in question to his notice. He was then 
confronted with the fact that dis-continuance and blockade of 
transmission of the broadcast of these two channels had hit the 
media headlines not only nationally but had even evoked reaction of 
the international community and how was it that being the 
Regulator of the electronic media, he was ignorant of such an act on 
the part of the T.V. cable operators. At the said stage, the Chairman 
Const. Petitions No.46 & 47/2010 
-: 3 :- 
submitted that he was aware of the matter and had in fact issued 
show cause notices to four T.V. cable operators, namely, M/s City 
Communications, M/s Worldcall Telecom Limited Broadband, M/s 
Karachi Cable Service and M/s Media Plus Communications on 
August 9, 2010 and which exercise had then been repeated on 
August 10, 2010. Copies of these alleged show cause notices were 
placed before us which were almost identical in content and, 
therefore, the contents of only one of them issued to M/s City 
Communication are being reproduced hereunder:- 
“It has come to the notice of the Authority 
that M/s City Communication have 
suspended/stopped the distribution of 
PEMRA Licensed channels namely “GEO 
News” and ARY News” on its network in 
sheer contravention to the PEMRA laws 
and your license terms and conditions 
which were duly agreed and signed by 
you. 
2. 
M/s City Communication are 
therefore, DIRECTED TO RESUME THE 
DISTRIBUTION OF “GEO NEWS” AND 
“ARY 
NEWS” 
ON 
ITS 
NETWORK, 
immediately. Failing which appropriate 
legal action shall be taken against you.” 
 
4. 
 
When the Chairman was confronted with the contents of 
the said notice which hardly qualified as show cause notices, his 
submission was that according to the practice in his office, this is 
how a show cause notice was worded. 
5. 
 
It was on being repeatedly questioned as to why he had 
not invoked the powers vesting in him, inter-alia, under section 30 
read with section 28 or why criminal proceedings could not be 
initiated under section 33 of the PEMRA Ordinance of 2002, that the 
Const. Petitions No.46 & 47/2010 
-: 4 :- 
Chairman of PEMRA reluctantly submitted that the T.V. cable 
operators in question had dis-continued the distribution service of 
ARY and GEO channels to the viewers because of the law and order 
situation obtaining in Karachi and which was continuing in the said 
area wherein loss/damage had been caused to the equipment and to 
the property etc. of the T.V. cable operators in question and wherein 
not only the said property but even the safety of the employees and 
workers of the said Operators had come under serious threat. He 
was then joined by the Information Secretary who added that on 
account of a news-item aired by the said two T.V. channels, some 
hooligans in Karachi had caused a law and order situation which 
had made it un-safe and impossible for the cable operators in 
question to continue airing the service of the said two T.V. channels. 
6. 
 
At this stage, the written replies submitted before us by 
the Secretary Information of the Government of Pakistan and by the 
Chairman of PEMRA may also be noticed. The reply by the 
Information Secretary reads as under:- 
? “The Government strongly believes in 
freedom of the press. 
? No instructions explicit or implicit have 
been issued to any organization or 
individual to block the transmission of 
GEO and ARY. 
? At the advice of the Government, PEMRA 
issued notices to four concerned cable 
operators 
who 
have 
blocked 
the 
transmission of GEO and ARY in Karachi. 
It must be pointed out that there are 235 
cable operators in Karachi and overall 
there are more than 2500 cable operators 
in Pakistan who have not done so. 
Const. Petitions No.46 & 47/2010 
-: 5 :- 
? After notices by PEMRA these cable 
operators have reportedly restored the 
transmission of ARY. 
? The Government will take all steps as 
permissible under the law in this regard. 
? The compliance of the orders of the 
Honourable Court shall be carried out 
faithfully.” 
 
The relevant parts of the reply filed by the said Chairman read as 
under:- 
“That in compliance of the Hon’ble Court’s 
directions, PEMRA has issued show cause 
notices to all the concerned four cable 
operators i.e. M/s World Call, M/s Media 
Plus Communication, M/s Karachi Cable 
Service and M/s City Communication 
(copies enclosed). It has been clearly 
mentioned in the show cause notice if the 
transmission of Geo News and ARY News 
(although as per PEMRA’s information ARY 
News is already on air) is not restored 
immediately their licences shall be 
suspended/revoked. 
That one of the above four cable operators 
(M/s World Call) replied vide letter dated 
11.08.10 
and 
claimed 
that 
the 
transmission of Geo News was suspended 
on account of law and order situation in 
order to continue the airing of remaining 
TV Channels. M/s World Call also 
requested law protection in this regard.”  
7. 
 
The Chairman PEMRA then also placed before us a copy 
of a letter dated August 11, 2010 addressed by the Chief Executive 
Officer of M/s Worldcall Telecom Ltd. to the General Manager (Legal) 
Const. Petitions No.46 & 47/2010 
-: 6 :- 
of the PEMRA.. The relevant part of the said letter is re-produced 
hereunder:- 
“Foremost, we confirm that all PEMRA 
licensed channels, including ‘Geo News’ 
and ‘ARY News’ , are being distributed 
by Worldcall on its cable network 
throughout the country. However, the 
distribution of these two channels is 
suspended in Karachi temporarily in the 
larger interest of our company and to 
keep the remaining service running. WE 
BELIEVE THAT PEMRA IS WELL AWARE 
OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE 
PREVAILING 
AT 
KARACHI 
VIZ. 
THE 
CABLE OPERATORS SHOWING THESE 
TWO CHANNELS.” 
(emphasis has been supplied) 
And it was to substantiate the said alleged fears of the Cable 
Operators and the PEMRA’s response thereto that Regional Manager 
of PEMRA addressed a letter to the Capital City Police Officer, 
Karachi which was purportedly written yesterday i.e. on August 12, 
2010 and faxed to the said Officer at 11:17 a.m. today i.e. on 13th 
August, 2010 which was after the hearing of this case had 
commenced this morning and after the Chairman of PEMRA and 
others had been asked to appear before this Court. Be that as it 
may, the Regional General Manager of PEMRA in Karachi had 
requested the Chief of Karachi Police to provide appropriate police 
security to four Cable T.V. Networks in Karachi so that the 
distribution of ARY News and GEO News was not interrupted or off-
aired. The four Cable T.V. Network Operators mentioned in the said 
communication were M/s City Communication, M/s Karachi Cable 
Services, M/s Media Plus Communications and M/s Worldcall 
Telecom Limited Broadband. 
Const. Petitions No.46 & 47/2010 
-: 7 :- 
8. 
 
It is noticeable that the above said letter of M/s Worldcall 
dated August 11, 2010 did not mention even a single incident or any 
time, date or place where such an incident involving the alleged 
vandalism had taken place in Karachi or elsewhere wherein any loss 
or damage to any equipment belonging to the said operator had got 
caused. 
This 
letter, 
however, 
does 
talk 
of 
some 
secret 
confidentialities between the PEMRA and the said Operator because 
the above-quoted portion of the said letter talked about PEMRA 
being aware of the circumstances vis-à-vis the airing of the said two 
channels by the cable operators. The Chairman PEMRA, for reasons 
known to him chose not to share the said ‘circumstances’ with this 
Court. We also noticed that what had been placed before us was 
only one letter from M/s Worldcall and no other Operator had 
addressed any such communication to the PEMRA or to anyone else 
nor had expressed any apprehensions of the kind. Even in the 
above-mentioned letter of August 12, 2010 sent to the Chief of 
Karachi Police by PEMRA, a mention had been made only of one 
letter of M/s Worldcall and of no other. This then established that 
no such apprehension had ever been shared or expressed by any 
other cable operator. The obvious question then was, that why those 
Cable Operators were denying distribution service to the said 
channels. The above-noticed circumstances cast doubts about the 
veracity of the reason being reluctantly offered by the Chairman 
PEMRA 
and 
the 
Information 
Secretary 
for 
the 
closure 
of 
transmission of the channels in question i.e. hooliganism and 
vandalism. Therefore, while we were hearing this case, we directed 
the Registrar of this Court to establish contact with the Provincial 
Const. Petitions No.46 & 47/2010 
-: 8 :- 
Police Officers of Punjab and Sindh and to check up with them 
about any incident involving a law and order situation on account of 
any broadcast of any of the two channels in question which may 
have been reported to the Police or which may have come to their 
notice; any theft or loss of or damage to any property of any T.V. 
Cable Operator on the said account or the lodging of any F.I.R. or 
even a report about any such incident or apprehensions vis-à-vis the 
airing of the transmission of ARY News and Geo News. The Registrar 
established immediate contact with the said two Police Officers and 
submitted his report, in writing, which was read out in Court and 
which is reproduced hereunder:- 
“As per Court order, I spoke to Mr. Tariq 
Saleem, PPO, Punjab and Mr. Babar 
Khattak, PPO, Sindh to enquire as to 
whether any complaint has been filed 
and FIR registered by any Cable Operator 
pertaining to threats given to them or the 
law & order situation. The PPO, Punjab 
wanted time to seek information from the 
RPOs. After seeking such information, he 
reported that no complaint has been filed 
and as such, no FIR registered in the 
matter. 
The PPO Sindh also wanted time to get 
necessary information from Mr. Waseem 
Ahmed, CCPO, Karachi. After a short 
while, both the PPO and CCPO reported 
that no complaint has been filed and as 
such, no FIR registered in the matter.” 
 
9. 
 
A bare perusal of the said report indicates that the 
excuse being offered for blocking the transmission of the said two 
channels appears to be a mere fabrication only to justify an illegal 
and an un-lawful act as it is not believable that if any act of 
Const. Petitions No.46 & 47/2010 
-: 9 :- 
vandalism causing loss or damage to the valuable property of M/s 
Worldcall had occurred or any threat to the security of the allegedly 
invaluable equipment or to the personnel of the said organization 
existed then the concerned victims including the Worldcall itself 
would not have lodged even a simple report with the Police or would 
not have sought Police protection or would not have reported the 
matter to the PEMRA informing them of their inability to continue to 
provide the requisite service to the Channels in question and also to 
the hundreds and thousands of their subscribing viewers. 
10. 
 
Before proceeding with the matter any further, it would 
be of advantage to notice some of the relevant provisions of the 
Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) Ordinance 
of 2002. This Ordinance was enacted, inter-alia, to enlarge the 
choice available to the people of Pakistan in the media vis-à-vis 
news, current affairs and other informative, educational and 
entertainment 
programmes; 
to 
facilitate 
the 
devolution 
of 
responsibilities and powers to the gross-roots by improving the 
access of the people to mass media at the local level and to ensure 
ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY and GOOD GOVERNANCE by 
optimizing the free flow of information. An Authority (PEMRA) 
comprising 12 Members, to be appointed by the President, with the 
Chairman as its head was set up to REGULATE the establishment 
and operation of all broadcast media and distribution services in 
Pakistan. According to section 19 of the said Ordinance, no person 
could engage in any broadcast media or distribution service except 
after obtaining a license issued under the said Ordinance and the 
PEMRA was given the exclusive right to issue licenses for the 
Const. Petitions No.46 & 47/2010 
-: 10 :- 
establishment and operation of all broadcast media and distribution 
services. As per the provisions of section 27 thereof it is only the 
PEMRA and that also through an order in writing, giving reasons 
therefor, which could prohibit any broadcast or distribution of any 
programme or news-item etc. if it was of the opinion that such a 
programme was likely, inter-alia, to create hatred amongst the 
people or was pre-judicial to the maintenance of law and order or 
was likely to disturb public peace and tranquility. Section 28 of the 
said Ordinance commanded a broadcast media or a distribution 
service operator not to cease or suspend broadcasting except on 
account of force-majeure or with the prior approval of the Authority. 
Section 30 empowered the PEMRA to suspend or even to revoke any 
license granted by it if the licensee contravened any of the provisions 
of the said Ordinance of 2002; any rules or regulations or the 
conditions of the license. The violation or the abetment of any 
violation of the provisions of the said Ordinance of 2002 was made 
punishable under section 33 of the said Ordinance which 
punishment could extend to imprisonment upto three years or a fine 
extending upto 10 million rupees or with both. Section 34 and 34-A 
of the said Ordinance, declare the said offences to be cognizable. 
11. 
 
Such 
was 
then 
the 
importance attached to the 
obligations, inter-alia, cast on the Cable T.V. Network Operators 
offering the distribution services and the importance attached to the 
un-disturbed 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  
 
Const. Petitions No.46 & 47/2010 
-: 11 :- 
or any distribution thereof and that also 
not without an order in writing giving 
reasons therefor; 
ii) 
no T.V. 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 license of any such operator 
causing any interference/obstruction in 
the distribution of any broadcast could 
result in suspension or even revocation of 
the license granted to such an operator; 
and 
iv) 
such an act of interference and 
obstruction was also a penal offence 
carrying a sentence of imprisonment upto 
three years or a fine of rupees ten million 
or both and such an offence was a 
cognizable offence authorizing 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 and of press as guaranteed by Article 
19 of the constitution and equally importantly, 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. 
12. 
 
Referring now to the facts and circumstances of the 
present case, what, prima-facie, stands established before us is 
that:- 
Const. Petitions No.46 & 47/2010 
-: 12 :- 
i) 
the transmission  and distribution 
of service of the broadcast of at least two 
T.V. channels i.e. GEO and ARY was 
ceased and blocked; 
ii) 
there was an admission on the part 
of M/s Worldcall Telecom Limited that the 
said 
suspension 
or 
blockade 
of 
transmission had been caused by them;  
iii) 
no such admission on the part of 
any other T.V. cable operator had, 
however, been placed before us; 
iv) 
that the Provincial Police Officers of 
Sindh and Punjab had certified that no 
report of any incident of vandalism or of 
theft, loss or damage to any property or to 
any person relating to any of the cable 
operators had been reported to any police 
officer throughout the said two Provinces 
nor was any assistance ever sought by 
anyone in the said connection; 
v) 
no cable operator including M/s 
Worldcall which had allegedly addressed 
the above-noticed communication dated 
11.8.2010 to the PEMRA and that also 
after blocking the transmission of the 
channels in question, had brought any 
incident to the notice of the PEMRA before 
suspending and blocking the said 
transmission in question nor had any 
such cable operator ever sought prior 
approval of the PEMRA as required by 
section 28 of the said Ordinance before 
taking any such steps; 
vi) 
as has been noticed above, no 
incident of any vandalism, loss, damage 
or intimidation had ever been reported by 
any cable operator either to the police or 
even to the PEMRA before shutting down 
Const. Petitions No.46 & 47/2010 
-: 13 :- 
the distribution service which they were 
obliged 
to 
continue 
to 
offer 
un-
interruptedly to the channels in question 
and to the public which had paid therefor; 
and finally that 
vii) 
no order had ever been passed by 
the Authority in terms of section 27 of the 
Ordinance declaring any broadcast to be 
likely to create hatred amongst the people 
or pre-judicial to the maintenance of law 
and order or which was likely to disturb 
peace and tranquility.   
13. 
 
In this view of the matter, we find that the act of the 
respondent 
Operators 
of 
the 
Cable 
T.V. 
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 licenses 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 license issued by it to a 
T.V. Cable operator is a certification by it for all concerned that such 
an operator had committed and consequently stood obliged to offer 
un-disturbed distribution 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 
Const. Petitions No.46 & 47/2010 
-: 14 :- 
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 Chairman PEMRA in this entire episode, 
to say the least, does not appear to be above board. It was alleged in 
his face that whatever was being done, was being done at his 
instance. He retorted by saying that if he had so desired then 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 
Const. Petitions No.46 & 47/2010 
-: 15 :- 
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 T.V. Cable operators was the above-
quoted innocuous kind of a letter of August 9, 2010 allegedly issued 
by the Regional General Manager of PEMRA at Karachi which was 
allegedly followed by a reminder of August 10. 
16. 
 
The said letter of August 9 is a strange, though a rather 
revealing communication. The distribution of the broadcast stood 
blocked. It is astonishing that the REGULATOR of the service, who is 
also the custodian of the rights of the subscribers, did not even ask 
the non-doer the REASON for not doing what he was obliged to do. 
Does it mean that the REGULATOR, as was mentioned by M/s 
Worldcall in their letter of August 11, knew what was going on and 
neither the REGULATOR nor the licensee were prepared to take any 
one else into confidence about this alleged conspiracy of silence. No 
explanation could be offered that if all what was happening, was 
happening, in due course without any malafides being involved, then 
why shouldn’t the cable operator have informed the PEMRA, in 
writing, of the alleged circumstances which were compelling it to 
discontinue distribution service to some channels and to have 
sought the PEMRA’s prior approval in writing to suspend service. 
But, conspicuously enough, not that the ‘REASONS’ for closure of 
service were not considered good enough to be recorded anywhere 
Const. Petitions No.46 & 47/2010 
-: 16 :- 
before taking the impugned action but were not being disclosed even 
after the said action. 
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 Chairman 
PEMRA 
shall 
ensure 
immediate 
distribution of broadcast services of 
PEMRA licensed channels, namely, ARY 
News and GEO News even if the same 
involves strict legal action against the 
delinquent cable T.V. operators, if any; 
ii) 
the Chairman of PEMRA 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 Provincial Police Officers of all 
the Provinces including Sindh and Punjab 
are directed to ensure that if at all any 
law and order situation is created which 
could hinder the transmission of the said 
two channels then 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 
Governments of the four Provinces shall 
file their written replies to these petitions  
 
Const. Petitions No.46 & 47/2010 
-: 17 :- 
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 Chairman PEMRA as also the 
CEOs/license holders of the four T.V. 
cable 
operators 
identified 
by 
the 
Chairman as M/s City Communications, 
M/s 
World 
Call 
Telecom 
Limited 
Broadband, M/s Karachi Cable Service 
and M/s Media Plus Communications 
who 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 law. 
 
18. 
 
To come up on August 17, 2010 for further proceedings. 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
Judge 
ISLAMABAD, the 
13th August, 2010. 
*Waqas Naseer* 
