The Lahore High Court suspended on Thursday the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority’s (Pemra) decision to bar all satellite TV channels from broadcasting PTI chief Imran Khan’s speeches and press talks.

In a notice to Pemra, the court sought a reply from the media regulatory body.

Earlier, the court had reserved its judgement on the PTI chairman’s plea against the Pemra ban. The judgment was announced by Justice Shams Mehmood Mirza.

The court recommended forming a full bench on the request.

The media regulator banned Imran Khan from the airwaves with “immediate effect” on Sunday after he had lashed out at former army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa. The PTI chief had many times accused the ex-army chief of supporting the incumbent government rulers, who according to him have ended their corruption cases after coming to power.

Later, the PTI chief approached the court. He argued that Pemra’s order was “purely driven out of vengeance”.

Hearing of case

Justice Mirza wondered how such a ban could be imposed on the head of a political party as heard the case. “This is against freedom of speech,” he remarked.

Pemra’s counsel argued that the matter should be heard by a full bench.

“I request the court that this is not its jurisdiction,” the government lawyer said.

Imran’s counsel contended that Pemra’s ban on the former prime minister’s speeches and live talks was a “violation of fundamental rights” enshrined under the Constitution. He added that the media regulatory body “illegally issued” the order.

“Only three out of the 13 members had issued the notification,” he said, adding that the Pemra law demanded approval of at least five members for such imposing such a ban.

He also requested that the court should set aside the authority’s order as the country could not afford “such chaos” in the country.

The court later reserved its decision on Imran’s petition.

Imran Khan’s petition said mentioned that the Islamabad High Court had set aside a similar prohibition order in the past.

“Pemra has issued the order in excess of the jurisdiction vested in it and without having regard to the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 19-A of the Constitution,” it said, adding that the authority was not empowered to issue a blanket prohibition order, which appears to be “in violation of the principle of proportionality”.

The plea argued that according to Section 8 of the Pemra Ordinance, one-third of the total number of members was required to constitute quorum for meetings. But the meeting which passed the order against Imran comprised only the chairman and three members which made the order “coram-non-judice”.

The petition alleged that the order was “purely driven out of vengeance” and the respondents invoked criminal proceedings to apparently harass the appellants and stop them from pursuing their political activities.