KARACHI: The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) on Wednesday moved the Sindh High Court (SHC) against a ban imposed by the Pakis­tan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) on the live telecast of the speeches of party chairman Imran Khan.

A two-judge bench hea­ded by Justice Mohammad Junaid Ghaffar took up the matter and directed the lawyer representing the petitioner to satisfy the court about the maintainability of the petition on Aug 26 (Friday).

The petition made the information ministry, Pemra chairman, and the Pakistan Broadcasters Association respondents in the case.

In the petition filed by PTI provincial president Ali Zaidi, the former ruling party contended that Imran Khan was being “politically victimised” by Pemra as the ban was imposed allegedly at the behest of the ruling party in the centre to “settle outstanding political rivalries”.

It said that the notice was “illegal and in violation of Article 19 as well as Perma Ordinance” since the PTI chief was only seeking the redressal of his grievances.

The petitioner contended that the former premier had vowed to take legal action against a judge for not taking “proper action as per the law” and the Islamabad police officials in the alleged episode of Shahbaz Gill’s torture.

Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf counsel Omer Soomro argued that Pemra “incorrectly” labeled the statement of Mr Khan about the Islamabad police and the additional sessions judge as hate speech.

However, he added that the PTI chief and his party were intending to take legal action by filing cases against the relevant quarters of the subordinate judiciary and Islamabad police for being allegedly complicit in the extension of the physical remand of Mr Gill and “degrading physical and mental torture [of Gill] in police custody”.

The counsel further contended that seeking redressal of one’s grievance against police and lower judiciary through legal means was not akin to hatred within the scope of Section 20 and 27 of the Pemra Ordinance as alleged by the regulatory authority in the notice.

He argued that the action taken by Pemra with respect to the statement of Mr Khan was not only “punitive/strict/penal, but also suppressed the individual viewpoint which was beyond the parameters mentioned in Article 19”.

The lawyer asserted that the party chief in his speech made “no reference to any vigilante justice nor threatened the well-being of the Islamabad police and judiciary and his words were in no way prejudicial to the maintenance of law”.