ISLAMABAD: The Anti Terrorism Court (ATC) Islamabad on Wednesday summoned the deputy attorney general (DAG) to advise whether media should be banned from entering courtrooms to cover proceedings, an issue debated among legal experts.
On August 1, 2013, soon after assuming charge, ATC Judge Atiqur Rehman had banned the entry of reporters working in both national and international media organisations through a verbal order.
Currently, a number of cases including those pertaining to the Mumbai attacks and the judges’ detention case are being heard in the said court. Previously, the district and sessions judge (east) Syed Kausar Abbas Zaidiin, who was also working as an ATC judge, had allowed the media to cover these cases.
Following the ban on court reporters, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) Journalists Association, through Advocate Syed Nayyab Hassan Gardezi, challenged its imposition in the ATC.
Advocate Gardezi maintained before Judge Rehman that Article 19-A of the Constitution states, “Every citizen shall have the right to have access to information in all matters of public importance subject to regulations and reasonable restrictions imposed by law.”
He said no regulation restricted journalists from entering courtrooms to cover matters related to public importance. The counsel added that there was no provision in the Anti Terrorism Act 1997 which restricted reporters from covering court proceedings.
The judge, after listening to Mr Gardezi’s arguments, issued a notice to the deputy attorney general and adjourned the matter till September 2.
Meanwhile, the legal fraternity expressed mixed opinions about the ban.
Mohammad Akram Awan, a former ATC judge who had heard high profile cases such as the Mumbai attacks and Benazir Bhutto assassination case, told Dawn that an ATC judge could not pass a uniform order to bar the entry of reporters in the courtroom.
“A judge can declare proceedings of a particular case ‘in-camera’ and it becomes mandatory not to cover such proceedings,” Mr Awan said. However, he added that if the proceedings were not declared ‘in-camera’, reporters could enter courtrooms to cover routine matters.
Syed Qalbe Hassan, vice chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council (the apex body of senior lawyers), said the presence of media ensured transparency and fairness in the trial, and imposing a ban on reporters was tantamount to denying the right of freedom to the media.
“A number of journalists cover case proceedings in the Supreme Court of Pakistan and a separate space has been allocated for them inside Courtroom 1,” he said, adding that he could not understand why the ATC judge had banned the media from entering the courtroom.
He added that if reporters were barred from covering important cases, the media would not receive first hand information, and court officials would not be able to provide exact details of what actually happened inside the courtroom.
On the other hand, a senior IHC official, when contacted on the matter, said under section 25 of the ATA, the ATC judge had the authority to restrict entry of any segment of the society in order to protect the lives of the prosecutor and witnesses.
Similarly, Justice (retired) Tariq Mehmood said superior courts had given absolute freedom to the media in the recent past, which at times created unrest in the society.
He said the ATC could impose reasonable restrictions on the media while hearing sensitive cases in the public interest.
However, he suggested that the court, instead of stopping the media from covering all court cases, should take measures to ensure factual reporting as there was a law available to keep media organisations in check.