- Pemra does not have legal authority to suspend licence of any TV channel, rules in another case
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) again rejected report of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) in journalist Arshad Sharif murder case.
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial led five-member bench of the apex court resumed hearing on the senior journalist’s assassination case.
Other members of the bench include Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan and Additional Attorney General of Pakistan Aamir Rehman appeared before the court.
At the outset of the hearing, Justice Mazahar Ali Naqvi remarked no progress has been made in the case yet he also asked about the motive behind the formation of JIT.
So far no concrete material has been provided in the case, he added.
CJP Bandial said JIT is planning to visit UAE again for the probe. He also rejected the report of JIT submitted in the Arshad Sharif murder case. We don’t need such report which lacks facts and progress, he remarked.
‘Pemra can’t suspend licence of any channel’
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court (SC) declared that the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) does not have the legal authority to suspend licence of any TV channel.
The Supreme Court issued the ruling while upholding a decision made by the Sindh High Court, stating that the Pemra chairman does not have the legal authority to suspend the licence of any channel.
The verdict was given by a three-member bench of the Supreme Court in Islamabad where Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik issued a nine-page ruling.
The ruling referred to Section 13 of the Pemra ordinance, which clearly states that neither the Chairman nor any individual has the authority to suspend a licence.
While the Supreme Court confirmed that conditions for suspending a broadcast media licence do exist but it is still unclear who has the power to suspend licences in PEMRA. The court ruled that it is necessary for rules to be put in place to clarify the situation.
The court confirmed that the delegation of powers had taken place in the 156th meeting of PEMRA, but the organization’s lawyer was unable to provide any valid reason for the decision.
