People need to know if their rights and liberties are at risk, says SHC

Recalls stay order against TV channel for broadcasting news on mobile phones imported without IMEI codes

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has observed that the right to information and the right to freedom of speech are guaranteed under the constitution and that the people have the right to know about the illegalities that can pose a threat to their lives and liberties.

The court recalled its stay order against a private TV channel for broadcasting news about a mobile phone company’s imported phones as the firm failed to substantiate its claim that all its imported phones had proper IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) codes.

The order came on a lawsuit of Digicom Trading against the channel that claimed that the cellular company, with the connivance of customs authorities, released imported mobile phones without IMEI codes in violation of the Supreme Court’s order and the National Action Plan.

The plaintiff contested the news item, saying that the company’s imports were made after compliance of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority’s (PTA) approval and sought a restraining order against the TV channel because it had damaged its reputation and goodwill.

On June 2 the court issued a restraining order against the private TV channel, barring it from broadcasting news about the imported mobile phones of the plaintiff.

The channel’s counsel Khawaja Shamsul Islam said the plaintiff’s application was defective not only on account of Section 8 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002, which required a 14-day notice to the defendant against whom action was to be initiated, but the plaintiff also availed the remedy under the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority’s (Pemra) law.

He said the application was not maintainable because the plaintiff had already availed remedy before the Pemra’s Council of Complaints.

The SHC’s single bench headed by Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan observed that ignoring the inherent defects of the application, the suit at hand could not be adjudicated without making the customs authorities a necessary party in the case because the news item clearly referred to the alliance of the plaintiff with them during the import of the mobile phones.

The court said that this was not the first time when reports had surfaced against the plaintiffs allegedly importing mobile phones without proper IMEI codes embossed or programmed before the date of import of the respective phones.

The bench added that various random documents shown as good declaration as well as the PTA’s approval, when microscopically examined, could not show any nexus of goods declaration with the PTA’s approval specifying details of the phones imported with specific IMEI codes.

The SHC said that in such circumstances when a goods declaration failed to specify IMEI codes of the imported mobile phones, it was difficult to ensure compliance of the law with regard to their import.

The court added that the top court had also directed the PTA to ensure that no mobile phone was allowed to be imported without an IMEI code in order to deter terrorism. The bench observed that the plaintiff’s goods declaration mentioned that 21,343 IMEI codes were provided for only 10,200 mobile phones, meaning that there was no correlation with the quantity of the imported phones with the IMEI codes provided by the PTA.

The SHC said that it was also alarming that while the PTA issued the IMEI certificate, the customs authorities were tasked with checking the contents of the shipment to ensure that the IMEI codes corroborated with the PTA’s certificate before releasing of the shipment.

The court added that the delegation of responsibilities were not cross-checked, resulting in the claim that a number of mobile phones were released from the customs without proper IMEI codes.

The bench observed that the instant application was hit by Section 8 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002 as well as Pemra laws, for which alternate remedy was hit by the plaintiff.

Besides, added the SHC, the plaintiff failed to substantiate its claim that all its mobile phones were imported with proper IMEI codes, and such acts were also in violation of the SC judgment in the Karachi law and order case.

The court said the plaintiff failed to address the allegation in the application, adding that the right to information and the right to freedom of speech were guaranteed under Article 19 of the constitution and that the people had the right to know about the illegalities that could pose a threat to their lives and liberties. The bench said the plaintiff had no case of any relief and recalled its interim order by dismissing the application.