Islamabad: (Pakistan Press Foundation) On September 24, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) scrutinized the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR)’s exclusive authority to designate individuals as defense analysts. The case, heard by Justice Babar Sattar, was prompted by a petition filed by the Ex-Servicemen Legal Forum, which challenges the military’s control over defence-related commentary in the media.

The petitioner contended that the ISPR’s monopoly on determining who can speak on defence issues is unconstitutional, as it curtails freedom of speech and media independence.

At the heart of the case are directives issued by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) on April 4, 2019, which required television channels to seek prior clearance from the ISPR before inviting retired military officers on news and current affairs programs to discuss national security matters. The petitioners argued that these directives reinforced the ISPR’s exclusive control, restricting the range of perspectives aired on such issues.

During the proceedings, Assistant Attorney General Adeel Akhtar Raja responded to the court’s inquiries by defending the ISPR’s authority. Raja based his arguments on the response the Ministry of Defence and ISPR submitted. The court asked several critical questions regarding the legal foundation of the ISPR’s authority to determine who qualifies as a defense analyst. When Justice Babar Sattar inquired about ISPR’s exclusive right to make such designations, the assistant attorney general requested more time to assist the court with these details.

The PEMRA counsel was also asked to clarify the link between the pre-clearance of individuals appearing on television and national sovereignty or security issues. The court questioned how PEMRA could impose prior restraints on speech through its directives and whether the military or ISPR had formally requested such a policy.

Additionally, the court ordered PEMRA to submit the original noting file that documented the process leading to the issuance of the April 2019 notification, asking why the regulator felt the need to restrict in the first place.

The case was adjourned until November 20.