Freedom of expression in Pakistan

 The most important law in Pakistan is the Constitution. All citizens are guaranteed certain fundamental rights, including the right to free speech. “Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security, or defense of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, commission of or incitement to an offence,” according to Article 19 of the constitution.

Sedition is defined in Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) as the act of “bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt, or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in Pakistan,” despite the fact that the constitution guarantees freedom of expression. Authorities have frequently used the law to silence critics and suppress dissent.

Pakistan is not the only country where free speech is restricted by sedition laws. Similar laws are enforced frequently in many nations worldwide to silence opposition and political dissent. The translation and requirement of these regulations vary fundamentally starting with one country then onto the next, and they are frequently tested legitimately and exposed to public examination.

The ambiguous and overly broad language used in the statute is one of the primary concerns regarding their implementation. It is difficult to determine what constitutes seditious behavior because the definition of sedition is frequently formulated in broad terms. Because the law can be interpreted to cover a wide range of activities that may not necessarily aim to incite hatred or dissatisfaction toward the government, this lack of clarity can lead to the abuse and misuse of the law.

The exercise of human rights and the enjoyment of civil liberties can be harmed by the enforcement of sedition laws. At the point when people dread voicing their perspectives against the public authority or its arrangements, they might be more helpless to tolerating maltreatments of force and infringement of their freedoms. A culture of impunity for those in positions of authority and the erosion of the rule of law are two possible outcomes of this.

Since 1947, the sedition law (Section 124-A of the PPC) has been recklessly used as a tool to exploit and restrict the right to free speech and expression, which is guaranteed by Article 19 of the constitution. This makes Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, unconstitutional and ultra vires of the constitution.

Both India and Pakistan have the same sedition law, which was passed down from colonial rulers of the subcontinent. During India's struggle against colonialism, this provision was extensively used to suppress political dissent. In SGVombatkerevs Union of India, a three-judge bench led by a former chief justice of India ordered the Centre and the States to suspend all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings related to charges framed under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to the offenses of sedition. This directive was issued in May 2022. This was to be done up until the time when the central government had promised to rethink and reevaluate the provision.

In 2019, a group of students from a Punjabi university were accused of organizing a protest against the rising cost of education under Section 124-A. A former senator was charged in 2018 under Section 124-A for giving a speech in which he argued for the Balochistan province's independence. A journalist was charged under the same section in 2020 for reporting on a government official's alleged corruption. These are just a few of the many instances in which this law has been used to silence legitimate criticism of the government.

Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code was struck down by the Lahore High Court because it was deemed to be unconstitutional and infringes on citizens' fundamental rights. The sedition law was deemed to be in violation of the constitution. The court decided that the Sedition Law is an old colonial law that doesn't belong in a democratic society today. It also stated that the law is ambiguous, susceptible to abuse, and has been used to restrict the right to free speech. The court also noted that the Sedition Law is incompatible with other constitutional provisions like the right to equality and the protection of the law.

Shahbaz Gill, the leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, was recently tried on sedition charges. MohsinDawar and AliWazir, both MNAs, and a number of other lawmakers are also being investigated for similar offenses. Arshad Sharif, Khawar Ghumman, Adeel Raja, and Sadaf Abdul Jabbar are among the journalists who have been charged with sedition. On charges of sedition, MakhdoomJaved Hashmi, a former federal minister, was previously given a sentence of 23 years in prison.

The incompatibility of the sedition law with contemporary democratic principles had drawn criticism for a long time. Numerous nations, like the Assembled Realm and India, have canceled or essentially limited their dissidence regulations because of their contradiction with popularity based standards. Additionally, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been cited as a reason why the United Nations Human Rights Committee has called for the repeal of sedition laws. Also, the law has been condemned for its irregularity with different arrangements of the constitution. Article 4 ensures the right to the insurance of the law, while Article 25 ensures equivalent privileges to all residents paying little mind to religion, race, position or sex. People who speak out against the law are treated unfairly and discriminated against by the sedition law.

Other laws in Pakistan that have been used to suppress opposition are likely to be significantly affected by the ruling that overturned the sedition law. The fact that the government cannot use the law to silence dissent or critical voices is made abundantly clear by this decision. The ruling's efficacy will be determined by how it is carried out and whether or not other laws are used to fill the void left by the sedition law. It is important to note that those who benefit from the law may object to the ruling. However, the court's decision to invalidate the sedition law is a step toward protecting human rights and strengthening Pakistani democracy.