KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Friday set aside the of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) barring electronic media from airing tickers with regard to court proceedings. The SHC said that the impugned directives were unlawful and inconsistent with the Pemra Ordinance 2002 as the same were made and issued beyond the authority conferred on the chairman of Pemra sans Council of Complaints. The two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana also noted that the media content has to be first viewed by the Council of Complaints — an independent public regulatory body — and after obtaining its opinion, Pemra — the government regulatory body — is to consider the opinion of the council and finally decide the matter. In the present case, the impugned directives had been issued by the director general (operations-broadcast media) of Pemra with the approval of the chairman of the authority, it added. Says the directive was unlawful and inconsistent with Pemra Ordinance In May, Pemra had directed all the satellite private television channels that no content, including commentary, opinions or suggestions about the potential fate of such sub-judice matter which tends to prejudice the determination by a court, tribunal, etc, shall be aired. “Further TV channels are directed to refrain from airing tickers/headlines with regard to court proceedings and shall only report the written orders of court”, it added. Citing the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Pemra, Pakistan Broadcasters Association and others as respondents, petitioners Shahid Hussain and some other court reporters as well as the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists through its secretary Alauddin Khanzada had moved the SHC and impugned such directives of Pemra. Referring to a judgement of the apex court, the SHC said that the media content broadcasted and received in the public space was regulated under the Pemra Ordinance, 2002, through a two-tiered regulatory system, the first through independent public regulatory body called the Councils of Complaints, comprising citizens of eminence selected from the general public, and second was Pemra, a government-controlled regulatory body. “The primary responsibility of these two bodies is to ensure that the media content is constitution-compliant under Articles 19 and 19A and meets the reasonable restrictions under the Pemra Ordinance, rules, regulations and the code of conduct”, it added. The bench also noted that the importance of establishing independent Councils of Complaints was to ensure that public representatives also review media content by applying commonly accepted or community-based standards of decency. “As the media content has to be put out in the public space, it is, therefore, first and foremost, that an independent public body representing a broad cross-section of society reviews the media content,” it maintained. The bench further said the counsel for Pemra has been unable to demonstrate that the power of the authority under Section 27 was not dependent on obtaining and considering the opinion of a Council of Complaint. “Therefore, the impugned directives could not leap-frog the Council of Complaints, avoiding circulation within the Council. The contents were subject to sanitization by the Council of Complaints before their release and, thus, violated the scheme of the Pemra Ordinance, when the chairman rushed to amend/modify the statutory Code of Conduct through a simpliciter directive”, it added. The bench also imposed costs of Rs25,000 each on two lawyers for petitioners in both petitions for consuming substantial time of the court by miserably failing to fulfil duty as lawyers and attempted to mislead the court contrary to the standards as set out in by the SHC in Mst Ruqaya Khanum case.