As it considered a petition challenging the social networking platform’s ban, the Lahore High Court (LHC) requested a report on X’s usage from the Ministry of Interior on Friday.
Since February 17, 2024, when former Rawalpindi commissioner Liaquat Chattha accused a top Supreme Court judge and the chief election commissioner of conspiring to rig the federal elections held on February 8, access to X has been hampered.
Internet service providers have also bemoaned losses as a result of outages, while journalists’ organizations and rights groups have denounced the suppression of social media. Pakistan was also urged by the US to remove its social media platform limitations.
Journalist Shakir Mahmood and other petitioners were heard by a three-member bench led by Chief Justice Alia Neelam on Friday.
Parties to the petitions included the federal government, the Ministry of Law, the Ministry of Information, and others.
The court requested a report on X’s operations from the Ministry of Interior at the beginning of the hearing.
The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority’s (PTA) operations were also investigated by the court. The LHC also summoned the record and the appropriate PTA officer.
Justice Neelum stated, “It should be made public which government agencies are still using X in spite of the ban.” “Whether X’s status is legal or not should also be stated.”
All parties must submit a response to the court, she said.
Asad Bajwa, the deputy attorney general, informed the court that the interior ministry had directed the PTA to ban X.
In response, Justice Neelum stated that the interior ministry ought to update the court on X’s present situation.
“Who is in charge if X is still being used in spite of a complete blockage?” Ali Zia Bajwa, a justice, inquired.
“A report should be given on why X is being used despite the ban,” the chief justice reiterated.
Advocate Muhammad Afzal Khan, the PTA’s attorney, told the court that X was being accessed over virtual private networks, or VPNs.
The judges then ordered that the matter be heard by a single bench.
The petitioner’s attorney, advocate Azhar Siddique, stated that a double bench might hear a challenge to the single bench’s ruling.
The hearing was then postponed until March 20 by the court.
Other Articles
No Comment! Be the first one.