news details |
|
|
| HC: Restore SMS services | | Bar fights ‘media curbs’ in court | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | Aug 4
Playing an active role in the ongoing agitation, the Bar Association of Jammu today got clear instructions from the High Court on restoration of SMS service and liberty to the media persons in discharge of their professional duties.
Though the government had restricted curbs from the cable television networks late last evening but a petition moved by the Bar Association came up for hearing today in which a Division Bench stayed the operation of order passed by Jammu’s District Magistrate Sunday morning. It may be noted here that the order was rescinded by the administration even before the case came up for hearing before the Court.
The Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court apparently understood gravity of the issue and therefore constituted a special Division Bench to hear the case at priority. The Division Bench comprised Justice JP Singh and Justice Sunil Hali. A petition moved on Sunday morning by President of Bar Association BS Slathia, treated as Public Interest Litigation, was pleaded by Advocates Abhinav Sharma and CM Sharma at a special court held at the residence of Justice JP Singh.
Besides orders on restoration of transmission of the cable networks, the Division Bench also directed the administration to also lifted restrictions on SMS (short message service) till next date of hearing. However, restrictions on SMS facility by all three telecom providers –BSNL, Airtel and Aircel –had not been lifted till late this evening. These restrictions were imposed Sunday morning after instructions from the administration in a bid to hold alleged spread rumours on the ongoing agitation.
The Court also directed District Administration to ensure that the valid curfew passes issued to the media persons and others are honored by law enforcing and curfew enforcing agencies including Army. The Administration was also directed to ensure that those needing immediate medical help are permitted to reach hospital/ dispensaries to have medical facilities. The Division Bench directed District Administration to treat Press Identity Cards issued to media persons as Curfew Passes so as to enable them to perform their professional duties.
In its petition the Bar Association alleged violation of fundamental rights including right to freedom of speech and expression and to life and liberty in terms of Articles19 & 21of Constitution of India and requested for treating this petition as Public Interest Litigation so as to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens and also of media. Advocates further submitted that the State Administration has indulged enacts of suppression of the voice of the press and intellectuals. During the arguments Advocates appearing for the PIL submitted that this District Administration is not honouring its own curfew passes to the press and individuals which includes employees associated with maintenance of essential services. Advocates further submitted that those needing medical care and assistance are being unnecessarily stooped to reach the hospitals/ dispensaries to avail medical facilities.
Division Bench in view of the submissions made in petition treated this petition as a Public Interest Litigation and issued notice for Rule Nisi to the respondents State of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary Home, District Magistrate Jammu, DIG Jammu and Divisional Commissioner Jammu for August 8, 2008 and after considering the submissions made by the counsels for the PIL for grant of interim directions and issued various historical directions to the respondents.
In the petition complied by the Advocates Rajesh Kotwal, CM Sharma, Minu Koul, SK Shukla, DS Chouhan and Abhinav Sharma in which it has been submitted that the order impugned have been issued by District Magistrate Jammu under the purported exercise of powers vested in him u/s 19 r/w section 11 of the under Cable Television (regulation) Network Act 1995, thereby violating the provision of section 5 of said act. In this regard it is submitted that from the perusal of section 5 it is abundantly clear that the Act only prohibits the transmission or retransmission of a program which is not in conformity with prescribed program code reference to rule 6 of cable television network rules 1994, would show that none of the contingencies contained in rule 6 which would attract the provisions of the act of the 1995 exists. There was no occasion for the District Magistrate Jammu to invoke section 19 r/w sections 11 of the Act of 1995 and prohibit the transmission of both the local channel in the Jammu district as also to seize the equipments used for operation of the cable television network. In the petition it was further submitted that the orders impugned are not sustainable as the same have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as no show cause notice or an opportunity of being heard was ever provided to the channels before debarring their services. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
