![](https://nextpakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/081322477767773-1.jpg)
- June 12, 2024
- Kainat Shakeel
- 0
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court’s (LHC) decision on the petition that challenges Punjab’s new defamation statute will determine whether or not actions under the law may proceed. Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq of the LHC also sent notices for the attorney general, Punjab advocate general, and the provincial government to provide their responses at the hearing on Tuesday. Journalists Jaffar Ahmad Yar and Riaz Ahmad Raja challenged the Punjab Defamation Act 2024 before the court. Advocate Nadeem Sarwar, representing the petitioners, argued that the statute violated both the right to free speech and the independence of the judiciary.
He pointed out that to form a panel for the accused’s trial, the government might request new judges if it didn’t agree with the chief justice’s recommended slate of three. He insisted that the administration could not reject the chief justice’s recommendations as they were mandated by law. The lawyer argued that the Act broke the norms by granting the government the power to recommend candidates for the tribunal, from whom the chief justice may select one. Attorney Sarwar argued that it is improper for the government to become involved in legal matters. Justice Rafiq pointed out that tribunals operate under government authority rather than the judiciary, similar to banking and service tribunals.
The petitioner’s attorney contended that the Act violated judicial independence since it allowed the government to set the tribunal’s member salaries and other rules. The judge questioned the attorney about how the defamation statute infringed upon the right to free speech and other fundamental liberties. Lawyer Sarwar clarified that by the law, a lawsuit can be filed even without proof. He further emphasized that, per the law, a defendant must pay a fine of Rs. 3 million even before the tribunal’s decision in the case. An additional advocate general opposed the petition, claiming that discussions over the appointment of judges to special courts had just taken place between the government and LHC. He said that the procedure followed the same guidelines as the defamation legislation.
The judge stated that the government could not reject the top justice’s recommendations only because a specific minister disapproved of the names. Justice Rafiq insisted, “This is not a business transaction or trading.” He mentioned that the petitioner’s attorney had inquired about the tribunal’s formation and the nature of the interaction between the chief judge of the LHC and the government. Subsequently, the judge denied the petitioners’ attorney’s request to suspend the law. She mentioned that any actions taken by the statute will be decided by the court. After adjourning the session, the judge gave the law officer instructions to provide remarks on behalf of the respondents by the next scheduled hearing.
The legislation has been contested by the two journalists in their petition, arguing that it is “in sheer violation” of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. They begged that the government should have adjusted current legislation rather than creating a new one. The petition also stated that the law was intended to control the media and had been introduced in a hurry without consulting journalists. “Vague, irrational, and ambiguous” was how the law defined “journalist” and “newspaper.” In a different filing, the Lahore Press Club has also challenged the law, with President Arshad Ansari leading the charge.