LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Thursday reserved its verdict on PTI chairman Imran Khan’s plea against the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority’s (Pemra) decision to bar all satellite TV channels from broadcasting his speeches and press talks.

The judgment will be announced by Justice Shams Mehmood Mirza shortly.

On Sunday, the media regulator had slapped a ban on Imran’s speeches and press talks with “immediate effect” after he had lashed out at former army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa for what he called “protecting incumbent rulers in their alleged corruption cases”.

Subsequently, the PTI chief approached the court. He argued that Pemra’s order was “purely driven out of vengeance”.

As the LHC took up the petition today, Justice Mirza asked how such a ban could be imposed on the head of a political party. “This is against freedom of speech,” he remarked.

However, Pemra’s counsel argued that the matter should be heard by a full bench.

“I request the court that this is not its jurisdiction,” the government lawyer also said.

On the other hand, Imran’s counsel contended that Pemra’s ban on the former prime minister’s speeches and live talks was a violation of fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution. He also requested that the court should set aside the authority’s order.

Subsequently, the court reserved its verdict on Imran’s plea.

In the petition, Imran named Pemra and the authority’s director (operations, broadcast media) as respondents.

The plea pointed out that the Islamabad High Court (IHC) had set aside a similar prohibition order in the past.

The petition said that Pemra had issued the order “in excess of the jurisdiction vested in it and without having regard to the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 19-A of the Constitution”. It further contended that the authority was not empowered to issue a blanket prohibition order, which appears to be “in violation of the principle of proportionality”.

The plea argued that according to Section 8 of the Pemra Ordinance, one-third of the total number of members were required to constitute quorum for meetings. But the meeting which passed the order against Imran comprised only the chairman and three members which made the order “coram-non-judice”.

It said that Pemra’s order was “illegal, unlawful, more than its jurisdiction, and contrary to the fundamental rights as enshrined under the Constitution” and liable to be set aside.

“The Impugned Order in effect has prohibited all news channels from airing live speeches of Imran based on spreading hate speech and making provocative statements against state institutions and officers. It is submitted that no hate speech or any such statements were made against the state institutions during his speech which entails such penal consequences as notified in the impugned order,” the petition said, arguing that the ban was in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution and the Pemra Ordinance, 2002.

The petition said that Imran’s speech in question had been “incorrectly labelled as hate speech” and his words were in no way “prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order”. It contended that Pemra was taking the statement “out of the context and political backdrop in which it was made in order to create censorship and inhibit the ‘freedom of speech’.”

It further said that the move to ban Imran’s speeches was an “arbitrary and malafide use” of Pemra’s powers to “stifle discussion regarding the torture and brutality being carried out against Shahbaz Gill and keep the public at large unaware of the developments in the case and essentially, thwart justice”.

It said that the order was “purely driven out of vengeance” and the respondents invoked criminal proceedings “just to illegally harass the appellants and stop them from pursuing their political activities”.