PTI chief seeks contempt proceeding against PEMRA

2 months ago 4

Imran says PEMRA flouted LHC orders by threatening TV channels of dire consequences if they broadcast his speeches

pti main  imran khan screengrab

PTI main Imran Khan. SCREENGRAB


Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan has urged the Lahore High Court (LHC) to initiaite contempt proceedings against the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) for disobeying a tribunal bid suspending a prohibition connected broadcasting his interviews, speeches and property talks.

Imran had challenged PEMRA's prohibition successful the Lahore High Court (LHC), and connected March 9, LHC's Justice Shams Mahmood Mirza had suspended PEMRA's prohibition order.

However, the erstwhile premier curate alleges that the bid has not been complied with, and that TV channels are not airing his speeches due to the fact that the respondents – PEMRA Chairman Saleem Baig and Director Operations Muhammad Tahir, on with different PEMRA officials – have threatened them with dire consequences if they bash so.

Read more: PEMRA bans airing of Imran Khan's speeches

On Saturday, Imran filed a contempt plea successful the LHC done Barrister Muhammad Ahmad Pansota, arguing that the respondents person willfully flouted the judgement and are successful usurpation of the court's order.

Pansota contended that the respondents' actions are contemptuous, illegal, "ultra vires" the law and the Constitution. He further argued that the respondents' actions are contrary to Article 10-A of the Constitution, and are truthful illegal, without jurisdiction, against Imran Khan's cardinal rights, and of nary ineligible effect.

He contended that the respondents' actions person unfairly and unjustly treated the PTI chaimran and violated his law close to beryllium treated arsenic earlier the instrumentality successful airy of Article 25 of the Constitution.

He further argued that the acts magnitude to wide disobedience and ridicule the authorization of the LHC, lowering the esteem of the court. As such, Pansota contended that the respondents are liable to beryllium punished for contempt of tribunal arsenic prescribed by the law.

If the respondents are not punished for contempt of court, Pansota argued that the process of medication of justness could beryllium undercut, and that the writ of the tribunal would beryllium flaunted.

Read Entire Article