The Lahore High Court, led by Justice Amjad Rafiq. Has postponed the Case Hearing Delayed of petitions challenging a recently enacted defamation law in a necessary legal proceeding. The Petitioners, President Arshad Ansari of the Lahore Press Club and other journalists. Argue that this law infringes on the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The new date for the hearing is July 29 because the Punjab government has not yet filed its response.
Legal arguments and counterarguments filled every space in a courtroom. Government representatives asked for a postponement to give them more time to respond comprehensively. Advocate Azhar Siddique, who spoke for petitioners, vehemently contested the defamation law. He avowed that it violates fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and implored that the court declare it null and void.
Punjab Advocate General Khalid Ishaq mounted an ardent defense against allegations made by these petitioners’ counsel. Ishaq responded to Siddique’s allegations, claiming that their claim was only speculative regarding the potential misuse of legislation. Consequently, he pointed out that they were arguing hypotheticals instead of focusing on actual infringements.
All sides presented their arguments before the court, and they thoroughly scrutinized them. The judges thoroughly scrutinized their point, which Azhar Siddique highlighted. This is why there are no similar laws regarding defamation in Pakistan’s three provinces besides Punjab. Justifying his claim that this law is unnecessary and can even harm people within its jurisdiction. In contrast, the court wanted to know what would happen if someone defamed from another province like Sindh.
Accordingly, AG Ishaq also argued that no person had yet moved to court alleging violation of their fundamental rights by this law. He claimed that the measure was still being implemented. Since tribunals were not set up and procedural rules were not in place. This, he stated, means that it is too early to bring issues against its constitutionality.
Conversely, Azhar Slaw maintained that if not revised, the limitations imposed by PEMRA (Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority) . Might put the Pakistani nation in a position where they may have international shame on them.
To avoid such situations and maintain the country’s global reputation for free speech, Sakharov’s lawyer asserted his opinion, explained more than individual cases, and argued for the protection of freedom of speech and media.
The court acknowledged the complexity of these matters. Advocate General Punjab once again clarified that anyone aggrieved under this law can approach the court for redress.
This time, the Punjab government can file its response while both sides prepare further arguments. This is a watershed case as it strikes a balance between protecting reputations and upholding freedom of expression; hence, the outcome will impact journalists, media outlets, and public discourse in Pakistan.
The Lahore High Court is expected to recognize the fundamental rights and strike down the defamation law as the legal battle continues. The case underscores a continuing fight for a free press against legal and political barriers.
