ISLAMABAD: Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Athar Minallah said Monday suspending social media platforms to curb the objectionable material found on them would do no good and only stifle free speech as the tech has progressed and restrictions will not bear desired results.
The court had sought guidance from the amicus curiae to enlighten it if the social media rules were not in conformity with the Constitution.
The IHC was hearing petitions against social media rules.
It had appointed activists Sadaf Baig, Nighat Daad, Fareeha Aziz, Rafeh Baloch, Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) and Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) as amicus curiae.
Justice Minallah asked the amicus curiae to assist the court in understanding whether or not the social media rules were against the spirit of the constitution.
Additional Attorney General Qasim Wadood informed the court as per an earlier IHC order, consultation was held with some stakeholders.
Prime Minister Imran Khan has formed a committee headed by Human Rights Minister Shireen Mazari, he said, adding the committee consulted with more than 30 stakeholders. Wadood further told the court the committee talked to Facebook, Google, Twitter and other global forums.
At this, an annoyed chief justice remarked: “This is not a joke. We have to abide by the law but we are deviating.”
Justice Minallah said the authorities were misusing their power under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA). “Where it is written that the authority must perform the moral policing,” the judge stated, adding the TikTok had been shut for a long time.
On this, the AAG said that TikTok has been restored.
The judge inquired whether the rules formed by the authorities were in line with the international procedure or not.
The counsel for petitioners said there were so many objections over the new rules.
The court wondered in which country the whole social media was suspended for promoting objectionable material. The AAG said as per his knowledge, the same practice was being followed in Australia, European Union and other countries.
The lawyer said according to the rules, the authority was empowered to determine which action could be regarded as contempt of court.
The judge stated this court had already decided that criticizing the judge would not be considered as contempt of court.
The petitioners’ lawyer held rules were framed only after two consultative meetings. “How could the rules be in conformity with the internationally-adopted procedures,” he added.
Justice Minallah remarked the world had progressed rapidly so there was no use of restrictions.
