Supreme Court judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa has requested the apex court to allow his case to be broadcast live on state owned Pakistan Television (PTV).
In an application, wrote, “To restore a semblance of balance and to correct the public perception, it is submitted that all future proceedings in the petitioner’s case may graciously be directed to be broadcast live, and/or live-streamed.”
His application furthe read that Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) needs to issue a written instructions to all private channels that they cannot be restrained in any manner.
“Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) is directed to issue written instructions to all private channels that they cannot be restrained in any manner whatsoever from broadcasting the proceedings and to order live streaming of court proceedings.”
Justice Isa in his application also questioned partiality of the Supreme Judicial Council.
“The SJC contributed to the defamation of the petitioner; it never once heard the petitioner, but in its order dated August 19, 2019 (‘the order’) dismissing Reference No 427, humiliated and castigated the petitioner,” read the application.
In an application, wrote, “To restore a semblance of balance and to correct the public perception, it is submitted that all future proceedings in the petitioner’s case may graciously be directed to be broadcast live, and/or live-streamed.”
His application furthe read that Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) needs to issue a written instructions to all private channels that they cannot be restrained in any manner.
“Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) is directed to issue written instructions to all private channels that they cannot be restrained in any manner whatsoever from broadcasting the proceedings and to order live streaming of court proceedings.”
Justice Isa in his application also questioned partiality of the Supreme Judicial Council.
“The SJC contributed to the defamation of the petitioner; it never once heard the petitioner, but in its order dated August 19, 2019 (‘the order’) dismissing Reference No 427, humiliated and castigated the petitioner,” read the application.