recurring sequence of events continues to change the media landscape in Pakistan while facing increasing challenges, particularly with regard to the freedom of speech and information. Recently court reporters faced a ban on live media coverage of court proceedings. A petition against the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority’s ban on live media coverage of court proceedings was then filed by the Islamabad High Court Journalists and Press Association of Supreme Court. It sparked significant debate. The matter has raised critical concerns regarding the balance between freedom of speech and the need to maintain judicial integrity.

The petitioners argue that the ban infringes upon constitutional rights to freedom of the press and public access to information. They assert that the ban was imposed without consultation and undermines journalistic integrity and judicial transparency. Article 19 of the constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression. It states that every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security, or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, commission of or incitement to an offence. Article 19-A, introduced to bolster transparency and accountability, states that every citizen shall have the right to have access to information in all matters of public importance subject to regulation and reasonable restrictions imposed by law. This provision highlights the public’s right to access information, including the working of the judiciary. The petitioners argue that the PEMRA ban on live coverage directly contravenes these rights.

While the constitution provides robust protections for freedom of speech and information, several laws and regulations can be invoked to control or restrict media coverage of court proceedings. The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 empowers the Authority to regulate and control media content. This includes issuing directives to ensure responsible coverage of sensitive issues, including court cases. The ordinance gives the PEMRA broad authority to impose bans and restrictions in the interest of maintaining public order and decency. Additionally, other laws such as the Contempt of Court Ordinance of 2003 for example are a significant legal tool in regulating media coverage. It aims to prevent any publication that may prejudice a fair trial or interfere with the administration of justice. The ordinance is often cited to justify restrictions on live media coverage, arguing that such coverage could influence the proceedings, witnesses or judicial decisions.

The PEMRA ban on live media coverage of court proceedings represents a complex interplay between protecting judicial integrity and upholding freedom of speech. The justification of such a ban on covering court proceedings may be two-fold. First, it may be based on the exception contained in the constitutional provisions guaranteeing the rights to freedom of press, information and speech. Second, the ban may be rationalised on the basis of public interest and judicial integrity. The latter justification may, however, be a flimsy one in case of a blanket ban.

The challenge, thus, lies in striking a balance between the judiciary’s need to maintain control over court proceedings and the media’s role in promoting transparency. Instead of a blanket ban, regulated live coverage with specific guidelines can help balance transparency and judicial integrity.

For the first limb, the challenge lies in defining what constitutes “reasonable restrictions,” particularly in the context of media coverage of court proceedings. Reasonable restrictions are usually based on content that might be in conflict with national security considerations or religious sentiments. A blanket ban cannot be justified by such restrictions, as they are case specific.

As far as the second limb is concerned, courts might argue that live media coverage can potentially influence proceedings, jeopardise the fairness of a trial and lead to sensationalism. High-profile cases often attract significant media attention, and live coverage could create a spectacle rather than foster an environment conducive to justice. Moreover, witnesses and participants in the trial might alter their behaviour under the scrutiny of live media, potentially impacting the case’s outcome.

On the other hand, the petitioners are arguing that the ban undermines transparency and accountability. The media serves as a watchdog, ensuring that the judiciary remains transparent and accountable to the public. Live coverage of court proceedings enables citizens to stay informed about the working of the judicial system, fostering trust and confidence. The ban, they contend, infringes upon constitutional rights and stifles journalistic freedom.

Although the need to balance transparency and ensure judicial integrity go hand in hand all over the world, a blanket ban is never a solution to any instances where the integrity of judicial proceedings might be at stake. There are instances where judicial proceedings are held in camera. Such exceptions are no rarity in Pakistan.

For example, in USA the trial of OJ Simpson for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman was one of the most publicized cases in American history. The extensive media coverage, including live broadcasts, was later blamed for turning the trial into a media circus, influencing public perception and potentially impacting the jury. This case highlighted the need for regulating media coverage to maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings. Similarly, the trial of Oscar Wilde for “gross indecency” was highly publicised through newspapers in the United Kingdom. The sensational coverage influenced public opinion and highlighted the potential danger of extensive media attention on legal cases. Paul Bernardo’s trial for the murders of two teenage girls was subject to a publication ban in Canada. The court restricted media coverage to ensure a fair trial and prevent prejudicial information from reaching the public. The ban was intended to protect the integrity of the judicial process and the privacy of the victims and their families. Lindy Chamberlain in Australia was wrongfully convicted of murdering her baby daughter, Azaria, based on circumstantial evidence and intense media scrutiny. The media coverage was highly sensationalised, influencing public opinion and the jury. The case highlighted the potential for media coverage to contribute to wrongful convictions and the need for regulations to ensure fair trials.

The challenge, thus, lies in striking a balance between the judiciary’s need to maintain control over court proceedings and the media’s role in promoting transparency. Instead of a blanket ban, implementing regulated live coverage with specific guidelines can help balance transparency and judicial integrity. Restrictions could include delayed broadcasts, redaction of sensitive information and limitations on coverage of certain phases of the trial.Providing specialised training for journalists covering court proceedings can ensure responsible reporting. Such training can emphasise the importance of ethical journalism, accuracy and avoiding sensationalism. Establishing a judicial oversight mechanism to monitor and regulate live coverage can also help address concerns about fair trials. Judges can have the discretion to allow or restrict live coverage based on the case’s specifics.

The writer is an advocate of the high court, a founding partner at LexMercatoria and a visiting teacher at Bahria University’s Law Department. She can be reached at minahil.ali12@yahoo.com