The Sindh High Court (SHC) expressed concerns over conflicting statements made by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) regarding the ban on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter).
The two-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Mohammad Shafi Siddiqui and Justice Omar Sial, was hearing petitions challenging the suspension of mobile internet services and the continued inaccessibility of X despite the withdrawal of the ban.
Confusion Surrounds the Ban on X
The case revolves around several petitions filed by journalists, academics, and legal professionals.
They challenged the government’s decision to block X and restrict mobile internet services, actions which they argue were implemented without sufficient justification. These restrictions have been in place since February, leading to significant public outcry and legal challenges.
At the start of the hearing, PTA’s lawyer, Ahsan Imam Rizvi, informed the court that the notification to ban X had been officially withdrawn. However, this claim was immediately contested by the petitioners’ lawyer, Abdul Moiz Jaferii, who maintained that access to the platform remained impossible.
This contradictory information highlighted the lack of communication between different legal representatives involved in the case.
The bench promptly questioned the PTA’s team on whether access to X had been restored following the withdrawal of the notification. Surprisingly, another PTA representative, Saad Siddiqui, admitted to having no knowledge of the withdrawal, leading to further confusion in the courtroom.
The court noted the inconsistency, with one lawyer being aware of the ban’s removal while another was completely uninformed. This lack of coordination raised concerns over the PTA’s handling of the situation.
The court gave the PTA and other respondents time to clarify their positions, adjourning the hearing for two weeks. A written order is expected to be issued shortly, which will hopefully provide further clarity on the issue.
PTA’s Web Management System and Minister’s Defense
In a parallel development, the country’s information technology minister, Shaza Fatima Khawaja, addressed the ongoing issue during a parliamentary session. She revealed that the web management system, which was installed under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act of 2016, had been utilized to block X, based on directives from the interior ministry.
While addressing senators, Khawaja explained that the web management system regularly receives updates and is typically used to block objectionable content and grey traffic.
She alluded to the widespread use of VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) as a method for citizens to bypass the ban and access restricted platforms. This comment hinted at the government’s continued efforts to prevent unauthorized access to platforms like X, even after the publicized ban.
However, Khawaja’s justification for the ban was seen by critics as inadequate, particularly in light of the PTA’s inconsistent statements. The petitioners have argued that such sweeping restrictions on social media limit public discourse and freedom of expression, without sufficient legal grounds.
National Security Concerns and Government’s Justification
The ban on X is not an isolated case. The government previously told the SHC and Islamabad High Court that X would remain blocked until further orders, based on reports from intelligence agencies. The official stance is that X’s management failed to comply with what the government termed “lawful directives” to remove objectionable content from the platform.
In a report submitted to the Islamabad High Court, the ministry of interior reiterated that the ban was necessary for maintaining national security and public order. The government emphasized that the decision was made in the interest of preserving the integrity of the nation.
However, this explanation has been met with skepticism by civil rights groups and legal experts, who argue that the ban represents an excessive curtailment of free speech.
Lawyer Jibran Nasir, who is also one of the petitioners, raised concerns over the wider implications of such restrictions, particularly on the day of general elections. Nasir filed a separate petition challenging the government’s decision to suspend mobile internet and broadband services during elections, a move that many fear could limit access to information and undermine transparency during the electoral process.
While the government maintains that such measures are essential for national security, petitioners argue that these restrictions amount to censorship, curtailing the public’s right to information and undermining democratic principles.
Next Steps and Awaiting the Court’s Verdict
With the case now adjourned for two weeks, the PTA and other respondents are expected to provide clearer explanations on the current status of X and the ongoing internet restrictions.
The court has urged PTA to clarify its stance, given the contradictions highlighted during the latest hearing.
In the meantime, Abdul Moiz Jaferii, the lawyer representing the petitioners, has stated that access to X remains blocked despite the PTA’s claim of lifting the ban.
Jaferii emphasized the need for transparency and accountability from both the government and regulatory authorities, particularly in matters that affect the public’s access to information and communication tools.
As the case progresses, all eyes are on the Sindh High Court to provide a resolution that balances national security concerns with fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of expression and access to information.
This case has once again highlighted the tensions between state authority and individual freedoms, a debate that is becoming increasingly prominent in an age where digital platforms play a critical role in political and social discourse.
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the future of internet governance in Pakistan.
