Annoyed by television channels’ free discussions on sub judice matters, the Supreme Court on Tuesday stressed that the electronic media need to devise some code of ethics to deal with sensitive matters. **“The media should devise some code of ethics since the analysts different channels invite in their programmes have neither seen the Constitution nor conversant with it but they made commentary of all sorts,” Justice Javed Iqbal observed. **These analysts, the judge observed, always choose a wrong timing and usually comment on matters which were sub judice before the court. The observations came when Attorney General Malik Muhammad Qayyum launched a tirade against the media, saying we the government side was victim to a media trial and what ever happened to Ahmed Raza Qasuri on Monday when a lawyer sprayed black paint on his face was the result of all this.
The AG said the media was trying copy the American style of debates on presidential elections but overlooked the fact that in the American media debates were held between presidential candidates. Referring to a recent programme on a private channel on the presidential elections, the AG deplored that here Advocate Munir A. Malik and others were representing their side while Parliamentary Affairs Minister Dr Sher Afgan was pleading the point of view of the government, whereas the hosts or anchors of the programmes were acting as judges. “This is all Tamasha (fun),” the AG observed, adding that they should not comment on matters which were sub judice before the court. Justice Mohammad Nawaz Abbasi was also critical that no programmes were aired on the scarcity of wheat flour but they utilised their energy on the presidential elections. As if the entire problem in this country revolves around President Pervez Musharraf, the AG said sarcastically adding people were rotting in jails and there were lot of problems but these were not highlighted. “When I say something they doubt on my intentions as if to put curbs on the media,” he recalled. At this Justice Rana Bhagwandas observed that they enjoyed freedom under Article 19 of the Constitution but the AG replied that those who get freedom should also realise about their responsibility.
Re: TV talk shows on sub judice issues irk SC judges
This is not the first time that tv discussin shows have drawn the ire of the judges.
Who cares? Its matter of freedom of speech, and if judges think that media can influence their decision making process, than they should not be be sitting on the bench. They should find a new job...or don't read newspapers or watch tv. Public has the right to know and media has the responsibility to get the message to public......on any issue sub judice or not. Like everyone else in position of power in Pakistan...these people are just plain morons.
Re: TV talk shows on sub judice issues irk SC judges
Who cares? Its matter of freedom of speech, and if judges think that media can influence their decision making process, than they should not be be sitting on the bench. They should find a new job...or don't read newspapers or watch tv. Public has the right to know and media has the responsibility to get the message to public......on any issue sub judice or not. Like everyone else in position of power in Pakistan...these people are just plain morons.
You're no allowed to use such language against our honourable judges. That's contempt of court. :p
Re: TV talk shows on sub judice issues irk SC judges
Who cares? Its matter of freedom of speech, and if judges think that media can influence their decision making process, than they should not be be sitting on the bench. They should find a new job...or don't read newspapers or watch tv. Public has the right to know and media has the responsibility to get the message to public......on any issue sub judice or not. Like everyone else in position of power in Pakistan...these people are just plain morons.
I think the judge made the comment considering people like you. :) In almost all the countries, it is illegal to influence the courts through media campaigns on ongoing cases.
Re: TV talk shows on sub judice issues irk SC judges
In almost all the countries, it is illegal to influence the courts through media campaigns on ongoing cases.
Wrong! I'm a law student and I know thing or two about contempt of court. Willfully defying a court oder is a contempt of court, as it is understood in here in the US, and in rest of the world. Scrutinizing/criticizing judicial decision is not a contempt of court. Here in the US a judge can issue a "gag order" if he/she feels that media can taint jury pool, but thats about it.
Re: TV talk shows on sub judice issues irk SC judges
Wrong! I'm a law student and I know thing or two about contempt of court. Willfully defying a court oder is a contempt of court, as it is understood in here in the US, and in rest of the world. Scrutinizing/criticizing judicial decision is not a contempt of court. Here in the US a judge can issue a "gag order" if he/she feels that media can taint jury pool, but thats about it.
But in Pakistan you can be censured for publicly calling judges morons and such?
Re: TV talk shows on sub judice issues irk SC judges
have you guys noticed how JUNG has toned down their coverage of case about dual roles of president from the day** justices started giving observations seemingly positive towards musharraf's camp.
**
For last 6 months (during CJ case and initial days of dual role case) all i had to do was to go ad jung.com.pk and 90% of the time first news was always about the proceedings of court and what observations judges gave (of course till then observations were somewhat against mushy's camp) and now i have to dig down to find a 4 line coverage of case so important that JUNG said its going to "change the nation's history" :)
Re: TV talk shows on sub judice issues irk SC judges
have you guys noticed how JUNG has toned down their coverage of case about dual roles of president from the day** justices started giving observations seemingly positive towards musharraf's camp. **
For last 6 months (during CJ case and initial days of dual role case) all i had to do was to go ad jung.com.pk and 90% of the time first news was always about the proceedings of court and what observations judges gave (of course till then observations were somewhat against mushy's camp) and now i have to dig down to find a 4 line coverage of case so important that JUNG said its going to "change the nation's history" :)
Jang and Geo journalists got censured three times by the Supreme Court this year. Yesterday was the fourth time.
Re: TV talk shows on sub judice issues irk SC judges
No that is because they don't want to get raided again. They closed down AAJ TV today.
ahaha ..... there is no chance to get raided as observations are in favor of mush :) btw top news now a days are still anti musharraf such as what Eitazaz Ehsan said etc :)
Re: TV talk shows on sub judice issues irk SC judges
ahaha ..... there is no chance to get raided as observations are in favor of mush :) btw top news now a days are still anti musharraf such as what Eitazaz Ehsan said etc :)
Re: TV talk shows on sub judice issues irk SC judges
ahaha ..... there is no chance to get raided as observations are in favor of mush :) btw top news now a days are still anti musharraf such as what Eitazaz Ehsan said etc :)
Exactly! :) Observations are in favour of musharraf so thre are no chances of getting raided. Thank you for making my point. :)
Re: TV talk shows on sub judice issues irk SC judges
Exactly! :) Observations are in favour of musharraf so thre are no chances of getting raided. Thank you for making my point. :)
jaaan bojh ker bacha na banoo cm bhai :)
You know what i meant...JANG is still reporting against Mush anyway its just that it was SO VERY IMPORTANT for jang to quote every ANTI MUSH observation but observations in favor of MUSH are NOT SO IMPORTANT :)
Re: TV talk shows on sub judice issues irk SC judges
Wrong! I'm a law student and I know thing or two about contempt of court. Willfully defying a court oder is a contempt of court, as it is understood in here in the US, and in rest of the world. Scrutinizing/criticizing judicial decision is not a contempt of court. Here in the US a judge can issue a "gag order" if he/she feels that media can taint jury pool, but thats about it.
"Contempt of court is behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. Contempt charges may be brought against parties to proceedings; lawyers or other court officers or personnel; jurors; witnesses; or people who insert themselves in a case,..."
IT IS time for the media to take stock of its performance. This need for introspection applies to all media outlets but more so to the television channels, for they reach millions as opposed to the thousands who read newspapers and thus play a critical role in influencing public opinion. It is important to ask whether political reporting and debate on most private television channels meet certain basic tests of responsible journalism: fairness, objectivity, balance and differentiation between fact and speculation. Debate in the form of a media spectacle may be entertaining or enlivening for some but not necessarily informative. Honest discussion must be ruled by reason, not emotion alone, and a willingness to at least listen to the other person’s point of view. In the context of the upcoming presidential election, what we are witnessing on television is a sustained and preconceived rant — from quarters both pro- and anti-government — and precious little rational debate. Indeed, the level of discourse may not be greatly affected if, instead of inviting guests, the hosts simply installed a few loudspeakers hooked up to tape recorders. These could then be switched on in turn — or all at the same time, for such is the din on cable TV these days.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court judges asked the electronic media to refrain from commenting on matters that are sub judice. First there are the country’s contempt laws to consider. When a case is in court, there must be no attempt to divert the course of justice or to question the competence and integrity of the concerned judges. Two, as one SC judge observed, talk show participants with no legal training are allowed to hold forth on highly sensitive sub judice issues. Legality aside, do such ‘debates’ add to the knowledge of viewers or swamp them with misinformation? Are members of the media, unwittingly or otherwise, becoming a party to propaganda? Is the media bringing clarity to public discourse or confusing matters further? It goes without saying that we vehemently oppose any curbs on freedom of expression. But these are important questions that the media would do well to ponder. There is no room in ethical journalism for media trials and character assassination, the very traits that the public and the independent media have long deplored in state-run television. True, the electronic media is still in its infancy in Pakistan but it is time it evolved its own code of conduct that incorporates the basic tenets of responsible journalism. Media ethics need not be an oxymoron.
Re: TV talk shows on sub judice issues irk SC judges
**First there are the country’s contempt laws to consider. When a case is in court, there must be no attempt to divert the course of justice or to question the competence and integrity of the concerned judges. Two, as one SC judge observed, talk show participants with no legal training are allowed to hold forth on highly sensitive sub judice issues. Legality aside, do such ‘debates’ add to the knowledge of viewers or swamp them with misinformation? Are members of the media, unwittingly or otherwise, becoming a party to propaganda?
Just b/c matter is sub judice it should not be off limit to public debate. Public has the right to know about what, who and how their leaders make decisions. Also, judges are human beings like rest of us, and whats more is that they're public servants, therefore they should expect criticism. Criticizing a judge or his/her decision should never be a contempt of court b/c thats crossing into and limiting free speech by very institution which should be protecting fundamental rights of the citizenry.
As for media, all media has some level or propaganda in it, and its not media's job to insulate judges from media. Judges should regulate/insulate themselves from media, and make their mind independently of outside influences. Anyways, I think if a judges decision make process is influenced by outside forces than that person is not fit to be a judge.