“Indian private channels may choose to be xenophobic and reactive, if they so decide. This should not dictate Pemra’spolicy. We are the custodians of our own freedoms and are free to decide our road to progress and growth. Being open to other cultures, art, literature, ideas and thoughts is an attribute of a thriving and evolving nation. It is also in consonance with our constitutional values and policies which discourage parochial prejudices” — Justice Mansoor Ali Shah in theLeo Communication case
WITH the passing of India’s nightingale, Asha Bhosle, her fans across the world mourned the loss of one of the subcontinent’s most melodious voices. Bhosle’s music had not only reverberated across India but had also found a place in the hearts of many Pakistanis who had experienced and expressed their emotions through her music. TV channels in Pakistan too paid tribute to her and reflected on her legacy. The tributes soon drew Pemra’s ire. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Human Rights Case No 22753-S of 2018, and invoking Section 20(f) of its ordinance, the electronic media regulator argued that the airing of Indian content was prohibited and issued show-cause notices to channels airing the news of Bhosle’s death.
The decision in Human Rights Case No 22753-S: In 2016, Pemra issued a circular banning all private TV channels from airing Indian content. The circular was assailed before the Lahore High Court, where Justice Mansoor Ali Shah declared that Pemra’s ban was unconstitutional. In 2018, however, the apex court suspended the LHC judgement. In keeping with the jurisprudence that characterised his tenure, then chief justice Saqib Nisar, while suspending Justice Shah’s well-reasoned judgement, thundered, “They are trying to obstruct the construction of our dam and we cannot even ban their channels.”
Section 20 of the Pemra Ordinance and constitutional right to free speech: Section 20 of the ordinance allows Pemra to regulate content to protect the “sovereignty, security and integrity of Pakistan”. Similarly, TV channels are obliged to preserve the “national, cultural, social and religious values of Pakistan”. Needless to say, the powers vested in Pemra have to be seen in the context of the constitutional safeguard of free speech. Article 19 of the Constitution provides: “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.”
A blanket ban on art from India offends the right to free speech.
While Article 19 allows the state and its agencies to regulate speech, the article itself envisages the circumstances in which the right to free speech may be regulated. Put another way, while Pemra may regulate the airing of content which vilifies Pakistan, spews venom against its security agencies, or attempts to incite violence within the country, a blanket ban on art originating from India offends the constitutional guarantee of free speech. While certain restrictions on fundamental rights may be the sine qua non to ensure order in a pluralistic society, such restrictions ought not to be so ubiquitous as to eclipse the very right guaranteed in the Constitution.
The right to free speech includes the right to receive ideas, facts, knowledge, theories, creative and emotive impulses through theatre, da-nce, music and film. Critical to the foundation of an independent and free media is creating an environment conducive to the widest possible dissemination of informa-tion from diverse and antagonistic sources.
Unsurprisingly, Pemra’s show-cause notice would only pass muster if the content celebrating Bhosle’s musical journey (i) offended Pakistan’s ideology, (ii) was immoral, (iii) or jeopardised Pakistan’s security and integrity. Needless to say, Bhosle’s music posed no such existential threat.
While the world today looks at Pakistan as a state advocating for peace and bringing the world back from the edge of the precipice, our domestic policies too need to reflect our global stature. While India may pursue xenophobia and peddle conspiracy theories through its films, Pakistan ought to act differently. Pluralism and dissemination of multiple views may be the greatest guardrail against internal fissures. In the words of Justice Learned Hand, “Right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many this is, and will always be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all.”
The writer is a lawyer.
X: @MoizBaig26
Published in Dawn, April 18th, 2026
