Hearing held in IHC in Constitutional Petitions against PECA

Islamabad: Hearing in the constitutional petitions against the PECA Ordinance and Section 20 of the PECA Act 2016 filed by various petitioners resumed in the court of Chief Justice Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Ather Minallah.

Arguing the case Advocate Usama Khawar representing the petitioner former senator Farhatullah Babar drew the attention of the Court towards the 4th Constitutional amendment made in Article 19 of the Constitution in 1975. The amendment he said omitted the word “defamation” from Article 19. This he said showed the intent of the legislature that defamation itself did not constitute the permissible reasonable restrictions/ grounds pertaining to Freedom of Speech.

The critical 4th Amendment shows that the defamation was intentionally removed from Article 19 as being harmful to the freedom of speech and expression and thus removed from the list of reasonable restrictions. Any such restriction on freedom of speech including the impugned section 20 of PECA-2016 is ultra vires of the constitution and against the patent intent of the Legislature, the petitioner argued.

He further argued that section 20 of PECA had been weaponized against women and this fact had been forcefully brought out into a recent report of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) and was violative of the Article 25 of the Constitution and therefore liable to be struck down.

He contended that ordinance making was more an administrative function as against a legislative function. While the Court rightly exercised restraint from interfering in legislative processes in the case of ordinance making workshop it was right and proper and necessary that no such restraint was shown by the Court.

He said that the unusual protection given to the public office holders in the new ordinance gave preference to a special class of privileged people over the right of common people to the freedom of expression and freedom of speech. By prioritizing protection of a a private privilege over a larger public good of freedom of expression was against the spirit of Article 19 of the Constitution, he argued.

Hearing in the case was adjourned till next Monday when the Attorney general will present his arguments against the points raised.