PLD 2023 SC 661
Use of technology for enhancing transparency and openness of judicial proceedings --- Technological developments should be monitored and appreciated , to ensure that access to justice for litigants is constantly improving --- Judicial system should , administratively speaking , be alive and alert , and responsive , to technological advances and changes that can enhance the transparency and openness of judicial proceedings --- Any approach that smacks of Luddite thinking should be avoided ; but at the same time it should be kept in mind - and this is the corollary- that one need not be dazzled and mesmerized by advances in technology ; it must always be remembered that technology is merely a tool and an aid --- Technology is the servant and not the master --- Simply because the Court ( technologically ) can , does not mean that it , therefore , necessarily must --- Sober and robust approach is much to be preferred .
Procedural laws --- Such laws have to be complied with ; otherwise , the judicial system will enter chaos .
PLD 2023 SC 661
Dispensation of justice --- Fundamental rule --- Justice must not only be done , it should be seen to be done .
PLD 2023 SC 661
Broadcasting or live streaming of court proceedings --- Constitutionality and permissibility --- Review petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the directions given to the tax authorities by the Supreme Court to conduct an inquiry into the foreign assets of petitioner judge's family members and submit a report to the Supreme Judicial Council despite quashing of Presidential reference against the petitioner - judge --- Present application was filed by the petitioner - judge praying that the Supreme Court may order live - streaming of the court proceedings of his case ( review petitions ) , and direct the State - owned Pakistan Television Corporation ( PTV ) to broadcast live proceedings of his case and the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority ( PEMRA ) to issue written instructions to all private . television channels that they cannot be restrained in any manner whatsoever from broadcasting the proceedings --- Maintainability and competency --- [ Per Munib Akhtar , J. ( Majority view ) ] : Present application raised an altogether new prayer that had no nexus with the review jurisdiction of the Court ; it also involved adjudication of substantive law issues and , appeared to be wrongly filed as a miscellaneous matter in the review jurisdiction of the Court --- Present application could not cross the hurdle of maintainability by relying on O. XXXIII , R. 6 of the Supreme Court Rules , 1980 , as the said Rule had no relevance to the facts of the present case --- Present Bench was sitting , as an " open court " --- Public , which was always welcome to sit in the open court proceedings , included members of the press and , vloggers and bloggers ; they were free to witness Court proceedings and frequently did so --- Relief sought through the present application was novel , as there had been no judicial pronouncements by the Supreme Court on the merits and demerits of allowing public broadcast and / or live streaming of Court proceedings --- Exercise of deciding the issue of public broadcast and / or live streaming could only be deliberated upon on and be approved by the Court in its administrative manifestation , therefore , the Supreme Court referred the said issue to the Chief Justice so that he may place it before the Full Court for deliberation and appropriate action --- Application was dismissed ] [ Per Maqbool Baqar , Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah , JJ . ( Minority view ) : Prayer made in the present application for livestreaming and broadcasting the court - proceedings could be decided only by the present Bench , and cannot be agitated through filing a separate constitution petition under Article 184 ( 3 ) of the Constitution --- Cases heard by the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction under Article 184 ( 3 ) of the Constitution , including review petitions and other matters arising therein , are matters of public importance within the meaning and scope of that expression used in Article 19A of the Constitution --- Live - streaming ( audio and video ) of the court - proceedings in cases heard by the Supreme Court , on a petition or suo motu , under Article 184 ( 3 ) of the Constitution , should be made available for the information of the public through a link on the official website of the Court , in the enforcement of the fundamental right of the public , and for the fulfillment of the obligation of the Court , under Article 19A of the Constitution --- Registrar of the Supreme Court shall take steps to provide for the requisite for livestreaming the technological infrastructure proceedings --- Registrar shall also place the matter before the Court , on the administrative side , for considering amendments in the Supreme Court Rules 1980 , in order to livestream court proceedings of all cases heard under Article 184 ( 3 ) and to regulate the practice and procedure in this regard --- Keeping in view the current state of technological infrastructure available in the Supreme Court and the fact that the review petitions filed in the case were fixed for hearing , audio recording of the proceedings of the court - hearings of the petitioner's case shall be made available through a link on the official website of the Supreme Court , for public information ] --- [ Per Yahya Afridi , J. ( partially agreeing with the majority view with respect to dismissal of present application ) : Relief sought by the petitioner through present application would negate the very spirit of the oath taken by him --- However the right of the public to have access to live - streaming or , audio - video recording , written transcript or any other medium , of the court hearings in the court proceedings of public importance , including those under Articles 184 ( 3 ) and 186 of the Constitution , was their right , however , could not be left to reign absolute , lest it be fundamental right under Article 19A of the Constitution --- Said abused and , thus , it was required to be regulated by framing rules under Article 191 of the Constitution ]
PLD 2023 SC 661
PLD 2023 SC 661
Art . 19A --- Expression " matters of public importance " used in Article 19A of the Constitution --- Meaning --- Said expression means the matters that pertain to and affect the public at large , a whole community , and not an individual or a small group of individuals ; in other words , it includes the matters in which the general interest of a whole community , as opposed to the particular interest of individuals , is directly and vitally concerned --- Adjective " public " necessarily implies a matter relating to the people at . large , the nation , the State or a community as a whole ; if a matter in which only a particular individual or group of individuals is interested and the people at large or an entire community have no interest , that cannot be treated as a matter of public importance .
Right to information --- Progressive and dynamic interpretation --- Approach of the Supreme Court to the interpretation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution has been progressive , liberal and dynamic --- Therefore , provisions of Article 19A of the Constitution have to be interpreted with a progressive , liberal and dynamic approach with which the Supreme Court has been interpreting the other fundamental rights and the Court has to explore the modern means of enforcement of the right guaranteed by Article 19A , which have been made available by the latest technology of the day .
Right to information --- Scope --- Article 19A of the Constitution creates a positive obligation on all State organs , authorities and institutions , including the Judiciary , to take the necessary measures to ensure the realization of the fundamental right of citizens to have access to information in matters of public importance .
Right to information --- Scope --- Matter of public importance --- Provisions of Article 19A of the Constitution do not contain an abstract guiding principle , rather confer a justiciable right - Right to have access to information in all matters of public importance conferred by Article 19A is a corrective apparatus , which allows public scrutiny to the working of the public authorities and institutions , and makes them answerable to the public , thus , it ensures transparency and accountability in the functioning of all public authorities and institutions --- Right conferred by Article 19A is effective in operation and extensive in scope : it is though subject to , but is not dependent for its effectiveness upon enactment of , a law that may provide for the regulation of , and reasonable restrictions on , such right and it comprehends all matters of public importance undertaken by all State institutions .
Cases heard by the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction under Article 184 ( 3 ) of the Constitution including review petitions and other matters arising therein --- Such cases are matters of public importance . -
0 Comments