The Lahore High Court (LHC) on June 11 put a temporary hold on the enforcement of critical sections of the recently enacted Punjab Defamation Act 2024, as legal scrutiny over its constitutionality intensifies. Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq presided over the session that temporarily suspended Sections 3, 5, and 8 of the Act pending a detailed judgement.
The court has called for input from the provincial government and related parties, issuing notices to the attorney general and advocate general of Punjab to assist in the matter.
This judicial intervention follows the passage of the Punjab Defamation Bill 2024 by the Punjab Assembly on May 20, amid considerable dissent from the opposition and protests from media representatives and civil society groups. The law was swiftly challenged in court through a petition filed by journalists Riaz Ahmad Raja and Jaffar Ahmad Yar, questioning its legal footing.
During the proceedings, the petitioners’ attorney, Advocate Nadeem Sarwar, argued that the law infringes on essential freedoms such as speech and judicial independence. Key objections were raised against Section 3, which facilitates defamation claims without the need for actual proof of damage, and Section 8, under which the government can establish tribunals with extensive jurisdictional powers.
The petition criticized the law for its potential to initiate proceedings without evidence, describing this feature as a violation of constitutional rights, including the right to a fair trial and freedom of speech. It further highlighted that the law’s provision allowing government control over the appointment and operations of defamation tribunals undermines judicial independence.
Justice Rafiq, while refraining from issuing a stay order against the entire law, underscored that any proceedings under the contested defamation law would hinge on the final court ruling.
Sections on hold:
Section 3 of the Punjab Defamation Act 2024 states: “Subject to the provisions of this Act and any other law for the time being in force, defamation shall be a civil wrong and the person defamed may initiate an action under this Act without proof of actual damage or loss and, where defamation is proved, General Damages shall be presumed to have been suffered by the person defamed.”
Section 5 declares: “Any publication of statement made in the federal or provincial Legislatures, reports, papers, notes and proceedings ordered to be published by either House of the Parliament or by the Provincial Assemblies, or is part of judicial proceedings or record or any report, note or matter written or published by or under the authority of the Government, shall have the protection of absolute privilege.”
Section 8 states, “The Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, establish as many Tribunals as it considers necessary to exercise jurisdiction under this Act and appoint a Member for each of such Tribunals and, where it establishes more Tribunals than one, it shall specify in the notification the territorial limits within which each of such Tribunals shall exercise its respective jurisdiction under this Act.”
Petition Details:
Journalists Jaffar Ahmad Yar and Riaz Ahmad Raja, through their advocates Shahbaz Akmal Jandran and Nadeem Sarwar, have filed a petition urging the Lahore High Court to suspend the enforcement of the recently enacted Defamation Act 2024 until a definitive ruling is made. The petition underscores the swift passage of the bill by the Punjab Assembly, facilitated by the acting governor Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan, amidst vocal opposition from journalists, human rights groups, and opposition legislators. This rapid enactment, the petition argues, characterizes the law as both draconian and authoritarian.
The petition particularly criticizes the vague and imprecise definitions of ‘journalist’ and ‘newspaper’ as outlined in the law, alongside provisions such as Section 3 which allows for defamation claims to be initiated without any required proof. This section, they argue, blatantly contravenes Article 10-A of the Constitution and established principles of evidence law, rendering it both unconstitutional and unjustifiable.
Further grievances are aired against Section 4, which grants absolute privilege to publications and statements made in legislative and governmental contexts, challenging this as a breach of the constitutional equality clause (Article 25). Additionally, the petition contends that the newly established Punjab defamation tribunal, which the government can unilaterally form under Section 8, lacks fairness and undermines judicial independence. The tribunal’s configuration, which equates its status with that of a single-member bench of the LHC when addressing complaints from public office holders, is criticized for its lack of impartiality and transparency.
The petition also argues that the tribunal’s establishment, operation, and even the process for appointing its members are in direct violation of the principles safeguarding judicial independence. This includes the controversial Section 11, which exempts certain officials from appearing in tribunal proceedings, further compromising the fairness and constitutionality of the defamation law.
Additional sections of the act are challenged for restricting free expression, such as Section 12 which prohibits any comments on ongoing proceedings and Section 13, which allows for the issuance of preliminary decrees imposing fines without a trial, effectively punishing individuals preemptively.
