FARHAT MUNAWAR BAJWA Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION, LAHORE

ORDER

The petitioner, Farhat Munawar Bajwa, has moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 may be restrained from telecasting the raid proceedings of the four respondents and others at his shop on 15‑10‑1987 either in their that day's programme or in subsequent programmes.

2. On 18‑10‑1987 respondent No. 1 was directed to submit a report with parawise comments and in compliance thereof the said respondent has submitted the requisite report with parawise comments which has been placed on record. Both the parties are present before me and as such the writ petition is admitted to regular hearing. The case is complete and the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents were not at all competent under law to raid the premises of the petitioner. It is forcefully argued that under Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, no action detrimental to the liberty, person or reputation of the petitioner can be taken except in due course of law. It is maintained by the learned counsel that the intended telecast of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 at their Television Station is illegal and is likely to condemn the petitioner before he is held guilty of any charge. He further stated that this broadcast shall further prejudice the investigating agency and the Court of law.

3. Mr. S.M. Zubair, learned Additional Advocate‑General as well as Mr. Khalid Mahmood Pasha, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents are present. The learned Law Officer contended that they are within their lawful authority to conduct the raid at the premises of the petitioner inasmuch as by conducting the said raid they have committed no illegality whatsoever. Learned counsel argued that in fact the petitioner himself voluntarily gave an interview to the respondent No. 2 and as such now he cannot take a turn and raise the objection that his interview cannot be telecasted from the Television Station. Learned counsel however, made a statement that this portion of the interview shall not be telecasted showing that some case has been registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner is satisfied to this part of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the report submitted by the respondent, General Manager, Pakistan Television Corporation. It is stated in the parawise comments that Pakistan Television Corporation has been producing certain programmes to enlighten the public at large with regard to the various social evils prevalent in the society in the country. The respondents have taken the position that spurious drugs are being manufactured and sold which medicine are causing death of innocent persons. It is further stated that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not seize any drugs from the premises of the petitioner nor did they raid his shop. They simply accompanied the Drugs Inspector and filmed the proceedings. They further took the plea in the written statement that the proposed telecast of seizure of drugs from the petitioner's shop and his interview were to be telecasted in the large interest of the public.

5. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. I do not find any lawful justification to intervene in the case. It is clear from the comments submitted by the respondents No. 1 and 2 in the case that they have not intervened in the continuance of the business of the petitioner nor they caused any hindrance in this liberty. It is clear that the drugs owned and possessed by the petitioner were not taken into pososession by the respondents. They also did not raid the shop along with the members of the raiding party. Respondents No. 1 and 2 conceded that the proceedings of the raid were, however, filmed by them. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before me as to what law has been violated by respondents No. 1 and 2 in the process of making a film of the raid proceedings which were conducted by respondents No. 3 and 4. A categorical statement has been made by the learned Additional Advocate‑General as well as by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that if some case has been registered against the petitioner, the proceedings' relating to that case or the fact of registration of the case shall not be displayed from the Television Station. I am of the considered view that what has been done in the case is duly warranted by law and that no law has been violated by the respondents. I do not find any justification whatsoever to interfere in the matter. I must observe that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are doing really a commendable job in introducing a programme 'Main our Aap' by limelighting the deep‑rooted social evils in Pakistan. They have singled out the burning problems of the people and have brought the same to the notice of the public functionaries. This act of the respondents, in my view, deserves commendation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the impugned action of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 suffers from legal infirmity much less the jurisdictional defects. The learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied upon the provisions of Article 4 of the Constitution and has contended that the respondents were not competent to interfere in his liberty and business. The above‑referred Article is reproduced:‑‑

"(1) To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan.

(2) In particular‑‑

(a) No action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law;

(b) no person shall be prevented from or be hindered in doing that which is not prohibited by law; and

(c) no person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not require him to do.

It is clear that the Constitution of Pakistan in an unambiguous terms through the above‑quoted article, has provided protection to life liberty, body, reputation and property of the citizens. No action. b any person detrimental to such rights can be initiated except in due course of law. Every citizen has the Constitutional right to do whatever he likes which is of course, not prohibited by law to do. I have given my anxious thought to the contentions of the learned course but I do not find any substance therein that the business of the petitioner was hampered by the respondents. The petitioner was not admittedly taken into custody by the respondents nor his liberty was interfered with by the respondents. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner was compelled to give an interview to the respondent No. 2. His interview to the respondent No. 2 was wholly voluntary. I am, therefore, of the considered view that Article 4 of the Constitution is not at all attracted to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The writ petition is misconceived in law and facts of the case.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition being devoid of force is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

A.A./F‑56/L Petition dismissed.