ISLAMABAD ( WEB NEWS )
The petition challenging the ban on the microblogging site X (formerly Twitter) has been scheduled for hearing in the Islamabad High Court. Chief Justice Amir Farooq will conduct the hearing on February 6, 2025. The last hearing for this petition was held on April 17, 2024. Further hearings were scheduled for May 2 and June 11, but the case could not be heard. Subsequently, a miscellaneous application for early hearing was accepted on November 22, and Chief Justice Amir Farooq directed that the case be scheduled after the winter holidays. The Registrar’s office of Islamabad High Court has now set the hearing for February 6, 2025.
Meanwhile, the Sindh High Court has directed that petitions related to the ban on the social media platform X be separated from the main petition. During the hearing of the petitions challenging the ban, the court requested arguments regarding whether the regular bench or the constitutional bench has the authority to hear the case regarding the ban on X and the internet. The court asked the lawyer whether the hearing authority belongs to the regular bench or the constitutional bench and whether the petition calls for any orders. Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court remarked that each case is being observed separately, and the court will first decide the jurisdictional issue. He also noted that no regulation contradicting the Constitution exists in this matter.
The court has requested the lawyer for the petitioner and the Deputy Attorney General to provide arguments regarding the jurisdiction and has directed that other petitions be separated from the main petition. The court said that it would first hear the main petition. Advocate Abdul Mueed Jafri stated that they seek the court to declare the ban illegal, to which the court responded that if the ban is declared illegal, orders will also be issued. Advocate Jibran Nasir said that the government has used rules to block access to X, and it had acknowledged the ban after five months. The court emphasized that the focus now should be on jurisdictional arguments and that orders would be required if there is a violation of fundamental rights. The court adjourned the hearing until December 18, requesting further arguments on jurisdiction from both the petitioner’s lawyer and the Deputy Attorney General.