LHC chief justice to hold preliminary hearing tomorrow

Author: Staff Report

LAHORE: Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice Shams Mehmood Mirza would hold preliminary hearing of an application seeking action against the Punjab government for imposing ban on Pakistani film ‘Maalik’ tomorrow.

Advocate Munir Ahmad had already moved this application in his pending constitutional petition challenging ban on exhibition of this film. The applicant counsel stated that the provincial censor board had allowed and issued the certificate for airing the movie but the provincial government pressurised it to withdraw the certificate.

He requested the court to issue directions and take strict actions against the concerned authorities for banning the feature film. He asked for registration of criminal cases against the culprits for disallowing the airing of film for public entertainment.

The Ministry of Information, Broadcasting and Heritage, through a notification on April 27, had imposed ban on exhibition of ‘Maalik’. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Opposition Leader in Punjab Assembly Mian Mehmoodur Rasheed and advocate Munir Ahmad had moved the petitions challenging the ban. The judge had sought final arguments from the counsels on these petitions.

The petitioner’s counsel claimed that after 18th amendment, the government had no authority to impose ban on any film and the matter pertaining to motion pictures was devolved to the provinces. He pleaded that the film was on the topic of corruption issue, which was hot in the prevailing circumstances after Panama leaks.

He submitted that film neither was against the sovereignty of the state nor was it against the social values but even then the government had banned exhibition of film in cinemas across the country. He said that it was high time when the people should be informed about the evils of corruption.

He said that the people of Pakistan have fundamental rights to view the movie in view of the Article 19 and any action in violation of the said article is void in term of Article 8, while the impugned notification is not in accordance with law as directed in Articles 4 and 5 of the constitution.