The Sindh High Court (SHC) has strongly criticized the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) for reversing its stance on the ban of X, formerly known as Twitter. During a hearing on Monday, SHC Chief Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui expressed dissatisfaction with PTA’s change of position after initially following a notification from the Interior Ministry to block the platform.
The court questioned whether the PTA’s actions amounted to professional misconduct or misrepresentation, with the chief justice asking, “Who gave you these instructions? Name the person,” reflecting the court’s frustration over the conflicting information.
The deputy attorney general attempted to defend the PTA, attributing the mix-up to case overload and unintentional error. However, the court maintained its firm stance, hinting at possible contempt proceedings and the potential summoning of the PTA chairman for clarification.
Additionally, the PTA’s legal team faced scrutiny for providing unsolicited information, with the court noting that one of the PTA’s lawyers had previously denied receiving any such instructions regarding the ban.
The hearing was adjourned until September 24, with the court consolidating PTA’s petition with related cases but choosing not to amend its prior orders in the meantime.
PTA requests SHC to amend X ban order
On Saturday, PTA officials filed a request in the SHC to amend or set aside the court’s September 12 order, which had restored X in Pakistan. The court had previously issued this order following a petition against the suspension of X in the country.
The confusion stemmed from PTA’s counsel, Ahsan Imam, who had informed the court during a recent hearing that the Ministry of Interior had withdrawn its notification from February 17 regarding the ban on X. The federal government’s lawyer did not contest Imam’s claim.
However, on Saturday, PTA filed affidavits explaining that Imam’s statement was based on incorrect instructions provided by the authority due to confusion with another case being heard by the same bench. The other case involved the withdrawal of a notification related to the formation of a steering committee.
PTA admitted that its lawyer’s erroneous statement had led to the court’s September 12 order, which caused significant hardship for the authority. The PTA has now requested the SHC to recall or modify the order, citing a genuine misunderstanding as the reason for the mix-up.
The court is expected to consider the PTA’s request at the next hearing, scheduled for September 24.
