IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT

KARACHI
Constitutional Petition No. D- Of 2024

1. MUHAMMAD ZARRAR KHUHRO

S/o Muhammad Zafar Khuhro
Through his duly authorized Attorney,
Muhammad Usman S/o Faqeer Muhammad,
R/o 92/1, Khayaban-e-Sehar,
Phase 7, DHA,
Karachi.

2. MUNA KHAN
D/o Muhammad Ashraf Khan
Through her duly authorized Attorney,
Muhammad Usman S/o Faqeer Muhammad,
R/o House No. 210, Street No. 36,
Off Khayaban-e-Ittehad, Phase 6,
DHA, Karachi.

3. ZEBUNNISA BURKI
D/o Aurangzeb Shaafi Burki
Through her duly authorized Attorney,
Muhammad Usman S/o Faqeer Muhammad,
R/o 801, Tower 2,
Oyster View Apartments, Block 2,
Clifton, Karachi.

4. AMBER RAHIM SHAMSI

W/o Ahmer Kamal Shamsi,
Through her duly authorized Attorney,
Muhammad Usman S/o Faqeer Muhammad,
R/o IBA City Campus, 4th Floor,
Aman Tower, Garden/Kayani Shaheed Road,
Karachi.

5. SAFIA MAHMOOD
D/o Zafar Mahmood,
Through her duly authorized Attorney,
Muhammad Usman S/o Faqeer Muhammad,
R/o Apartment No. H3, Roomi Gardens,
Block 5, Clifton,
Karachi.
……………………………………………………………PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1. THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

Through the Secretary, Interior Ministry,
Room No. 409, 4th Floor,
 R-Block Pakistan Secretariat,
Islamabad.

2. MINISTRY OF INFORMATION, TECHNOLOGY AND

TELECOMMUNICATION
Through its Secretary,
7th Floor, Khosar Block,
Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad.

3. PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION AUTHORITY (PTA)

Through its Chairman,
PTA Headquarters,
Sector F-5/1,
Islamabad.
…………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS

CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973

The aforementioned Petitioners humbly submit before this Honourable Court as

follows:

1. That at the outset it is stated that the instant Petition concerns a challenge to
the unlawful, illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide blockage and restriction of
internet access and specific social media platforms by the Pakistan
Telecommunication Authority, Respondent No. 3 herein (hereinafter
referred to as “PTA”).

2. The primary contentions of the Petitioners are that the Impugned Actions of
the PTA — which are the latest in a long line of similarly arbitrary,
unlawful, and seemingly maliciously intentioned acts — directly and
actively infringe upon the Petitioners’ fundamental rights to freedom of
speech and press, their right to receive information, and their right to
freedom of trade as enshrined in the Constitution. Additionally, the
Impugned Actions are in blatant violation of the laws and rules governing
the PTA’s actions as a regulator of telecommunication systems and services
in the country.

3. That, furthermore, the Impugned Actions have been deliberately undertaken

in a surreptitious manner by the PTA without any official notice or
notification of the same, completely disregarding and violating due process
of law as mandated under the various laws and rules described in detail in
the instant Petition. These actions are thus completely void of any cover of
 legality, and appear to have been taken in order to achieve nefarious and
ulterior motives at the expense of the fundamental rights of not only the
Petitioners, but every single citizen of Pakistan who has been directly or
indirectly affected by the PTA’s decision to restrict access to a specific
social media platform which has become critically important for the
immediate dissemination of information during the current politically
charged climate.

4. That the timing and national effect of the PTA’s decision to block and
restrict access to the internet, the complete lack of any ownership over the
Impugned Actions by any of the Respondents, the absence of any written
notifications or reasons for taking these actions, and the continuing
disruption of service with respect to the social media platforms in question
make it evident that the PTA’s actions and motives do not align with any of
the narrow exceptions under which the PTA is authorized to restrict or
disrupt the flow or dissemination of any content.

PARTIES
5. That the Petitioner No. 1 is a journalist by profession and an avid user of
X/Twitter, who frequently relies on the platform to access news, analysts,
and opinions that would otherwise be unavailable. Petitioner No. 1 uses
X/Twitter to monitor breaking news events, both locally and globally,
without which a vital source of information is strangled. Petitioner No. 1
also draws his coverage of the unfortunate genocidal events currently taking
place in Palestine from X/Twitter which content does not make it to western
media. Additionally, Petitioner No. 1 uses X/Twitter to generate and
disseminate information and news items to his audience which primarily
consists of Pakistani citizens. The Petitioner No. 1 is represented through
his duly authorized Attorney for the purposes of the instant Petition.
Copy of the power of attorney of the Petitioner No. 1 is attached herewith
as Annexure “P-1”;

6. That the Petitioner No. 2 is a writer and journalism instructor from Karachi
who writes a weekly column for Dawn Newspaper about journalism, arts
and culture, and women's concerns. She also teaches 'News Media Literacy'
as an Adjunct Faculty Member at the Indus Valley School of Arts. She
mostly uses X/Twitter to post her column and obtain information such as
weekly trend analyses as part of her training and coursework. The Petitioner
No. 2 is represented through her duly authorized Attorney for the purposes
of the instant Petition.
Copy of the power of attorney of the Petitioner No. 2 is attached herewith
as Annexure “P-2”;
7. That the Petitioner No. 3 is a journalist located in Karachi. She oversees the
op-ed desk at The News (Jung/Geo Group) and covers legal and political
issues for the paper. She leans significantly on X/Twitter for information on
domestic politics and international news. The Petitioner No. 3 is represented
through her duly authorized Attorney for the purposes of the instant
Petition.
Copy of the power of attorney of the Petitioner No. 3 is attached herewith
as Annexure “P-3”;

8. That the Petitioner No. 4 is a political analyst for national and international
media, Director at the Centre for Excellence in Journalism at the IBA University,
who relies extensively on X/Twitter for professional purposes. She utilizes the
platform as a crucial tool for gathering information from a diverse range of
sources, including reporters, government officials, institutions and political parties.
As a political analyst, the Petitioner No. 4 heavily relies on X/Twitter to monitor
national and international commentary, enabling her to provide insightful analysis
to the public, and also uses the platform to counteract misinformation and
disinformation. The blanket ban imposed on X/Twitter by the PTA has impaired
her ability to perform these critical functions, compromising the integrity of
journalism and hindering efforts to combat the spread of false information, and has
consequently, obstructed her right to access information vital to her role as a
political analyst and director of a journalism centre. The Petitioner No. 4 is
represented through her duly authorized Attorney for the purposes of the instant
Petition.
Copy of the power of attorney of the Petitioner No. 4 is attached herewith
as Annexure “P-4”;

9. That the Petitioner No. 5 is an academic and a journalist. She utilizes X/Twitter
to remain connected with fellow academics around the world and relies heavily on
the platform to stay up-to-date with information on current affairs. X/Twitter also
serves as a medium for her to advertise job opportunities for research assistants in
the journalism field. The Petitioner No. 5 is represented through her duly
authorized Attorney for the purposes of the instant Petition.
Copy of the power of attorney of the Petitioner No. 5 is attached herewith
as Annexure “P-5”;

10. That the Respondent No. 1 is the Federal Ministry of Interior, which is
tasked with policies and directives concerning the internal national security
of the state, as well as supervising law enforcement agencies. The
Respondent No. 1 has in the past been authorized to issue policy directives
to the Respondent No. 3.
11. That the Respondent No. 2 is the Ministry of Information, Technology and
Telecommunication, which is tasked with the development of information
technology and telecommunication policies and infrastructure in Pakistan.
Respondent No. 2 established the Respondent No. 3/PTA under the PTA
Act.

12. That the Respondent No. 3 is the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority

(the “PTA”), a body corporate established under Section 3 of the Pakistan
Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996 (the “PTA Act”) by the
Respondent No. 2 acting in the capacity of the Federal Government as
mandated under Section 3 of the PTA Act, and Entry 17, Schedule II [Rule
3(3)] of the Rules of Business, 1973. The PTA is responsible for
establishing, operating, and maintaining telecommunication systems in
Pakistan, as well as protecting the interests of users across the country.
Copy of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996 is
attached herewith as Annexure “P-6”;

FACTS
13. That the Impugned Actions of the PTA, primarily consisting of the blockage
and restriction of internet access of the social media platform “X” (formerly
known and interchangeably referred to as “Twitter”), first occurred on
07.01.2024, when internet access to X/Twitter was disrupted for users
across the nation. Internet access was disrupted again on 20.01.2024 when
several social platforms were completely unavailable for Pakistani users to
access, including X/Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. On
10.02.2024, access to X/Twitter was again blocked in the immediate
aftermath of the recently concluded national elections, at a critical juncture
when the platform was being used to disseminate important news about the
widespread reports of rigging of votes across the country. Most recently,
internet access to X/Twitter was specifically blocked in its entirety on
17.02.2024 and continued to remain blocked and disrupted until the hours
late of 20.02.2024 — a period of more than 72 hours. That after very briefly
restoring internet access to X/Twitter, it was again blocked and restricted on
20.02.2024 and continues to remain blocked as of the date of filing of the
instant Petition. These internet access blockages are a matter of record and
have been widely reported upon by various news platforms as well as
reports by international internet monitoring entities such as NetBlocks and
Downdetector, which have been attached herein.
Copies of the statistical reports and news articles indicating the
commencement of the X outage in Pakistan on 07.01.2024 are attached
herewith as Annexure “P-7”; Copy of news article indicating blockage of
 X/Twitter on 10.02.2024 is attached herewith as Annexure “P-7/A”;
Copies of statistical reports and news articles indicating blockage of
X/Twitter from 17.02.2024 till 21.02.2024 are attached herewith as
Annexure “P-7/B”;

14. It is pertinent to note that these disruptions were not preceded by any kind
of notice or indication by the PTA — which possesses the exclusive
authority and ability to implement such restrictions of access at such a large-
scale — nor has this disruption of access been limited to a specific location
or locations. In fact, PTA imposed a blanket ban on access to X/Twitter on a
national scale, affecting users in all major cities of Pakistan, and those living
in other areas. This is further evidenced by a map provided by
Downdetector highlighting different areas/cities such as Karachi, Lahore,
Rawalpindi and Gujranwala where X/Twitter outages were discovered. This
map was published in a DAWN Article dated 19.02.2024, which is enclosed
herewith.
Copy of the Downdetector map highlighting different areas where
X/Twitter outages were discovered is attached herewith as Annexure “P-
8”; Copy of the DAWN Article dated 19.02.2024 is attached herewith as
Annexure “P-8/A”;.

15. That secondly, the Impugned Actions of the PTA also consist of the fact that
the regulator acted in blatant violation of the provisions of the PTA Act, the
Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (“PECA 2016”), and the
Removal and Blocking of Unlawful Online Content (Procedure, Oversight
and Safeguards) Rules, 2021 (the “Removal Rules”). These laws and rules
mandate that the PTA must act within a narrowly defined set of exceptions
when determining whether it is necessary to disrupt the flow or
dissemination of any online content or information. Furthermore, the
Removal Rules from which the PTA draws its exclusive authority to disrupt
the flow of information, specifically requires it to act “subject to due
process of law”. The PTA has miserably failed to adhere to any semblance
of due process of law, and has consistently violated its statutory mandate, its
obligations to the citizens on Pakistan, and the fundamental rights of the
Petitioners.
Copy of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 is attached
herewith as Annexure “P-9”; Copy of the Removal and Blocking of
Unlawful Online Content (Procedure, Oversight and Safeguards) Rules,
2021 is attached herewith as Annexure “P-10”;

16. That ironically, despite the PTA having most recently blocked X/Twitter for
a period of more than 72 hours, several government officials have been able
 to publish “tweets” during this time. These facts demonstrate the critical
nature of X/Twitter as a means of communication not only between citizens
of Pakistan, but also with the outside world as well. Perhaps even more
ironically, one such tweet during this period was published by the current
Caretaker Federal Minister for Information Technology, where the Minister
shared some numbers on the growth of Pakistan’s IT industry. It is pertinent
to highlight that the only way to circumvent any such large-scale restriction
or blockage of internet access to any social media platform — including
X/Twitter — is by way of using a Virtual Private Network (VPN), the use
of which is illegal in Pakistan unless explicitly permitted by and registered
with the PTA. Most users of VPNs in Pakistan are constrained to do so to
circumvent the PTA’s repeated habit of banning and blocking internet
access in the country. In this regard, the Impugned Actions are akin to
effectively muzzling the digital voice of an entire nation, without any cogent
reasons being provided, or in fact any reasons at all.

17. That the Petitioners, who are independent journalists and academics, rely on
X/Twitter as the most effective and pervasive medium through which to
disseminate news to the public. The Petitioners use X/Twitter to not only
promote and disseminate their own comments and coverage of important
events, but also to inform the public of urgent, pressing, and relevant news
which often directly affects the constitutionally enshrined rights of the
general populace. Such information may consist of urgent political news,
exposés on various topically relevant issues, and other pressing concerns
regarding which the citizens of Pakistan have a constitutionally protected
fundamental right to receive information. Additionally, the Petitioners
derive great indirect economic value from X/Twitter through their work and
engagement with their audiences and the international community, which
has been severely hampered by the disruption in access to the platform.

18. That in the current political climate, amidst the many and varied reports of
rigging of votes in the recently concluded national elections, and the on-
going assault on the democratic rights of the citizens of Pakistan, social
media platforms have become an integral means of communicating and
sharing pertinent information and news as and when it breaks. These
platforms have also become digital spaces for citizens to organize and
mobilize to safeguard their democratic rights. X/Twitter is essential for this
purpose, with citizens using the platform to share and collate personal
anecdotal evidence of interference in the democratic process, as well as to
voice their dismay at their ownership and autonomy over their own
democratic rights being assailed by various quarters intent on ensuring the
erasure of the will and mandate of the people of Pakistan.
19. That in this context, the Petitioners are some of the many journalists on
X/Twitter who use their platform to investigate, verify, interpret, and
disseminate information on these particularly sensitive and relevant issues.
The evolution of the news media has meant that social media has become a
much more effective tool for journalists to fulfil their obligation to their
audiences of reporting the truth. In fact, the Petitioners crucially rely on
their audience reach on X/Twitter to ply their trade. The cascading nature of
“Tweets” on the platform means that the information and content generated
by the Petitioners on X/Twitter are viewed by hundreds of thousands of
Pakistanis and are often the sole source of news items which may be
omitted from traditional news coverage mediums such as TV and radio.

20. That, consequently, the PTA’s Impugned Actions have a two-fold effect: the
violation of the rights of the Petitioners, and the violation of the rights of the
citizens of Pakistan. The Petitioners’ rights under Article 19 of the
Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and expression, while the rights
of citizens under Article 19-A guarantee the right to receive information.
Both effects of the PTA’s Impugned Actions are in gross violation of
fundamental rights, and the PTA’s own laws and rules governing their
conduct. The Impugned Actions have thus been arbitrarily and unlawfully
undertaken and are liable to be struck down.

21. That the relevant legislation from which PTA draws its authority to block
any online content is the PECA 2016. Under Section 37(1) of the PECA
2016, the PTA is empowered to “remove or block or issue directions for
removal or blocking of access to an information through any information
system”. Furthermore, this authority to block or remove information is
limited to certain exceptions which stem from the exceptions to the right of
freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Constitution. These exceptions
are clearly defined under Section 37(1) of PECA 2016 and have been
detailed in paragraph 26 of the instant Petition.

22. That sub-Section (2) of the same provision requires the prescription of rules
providing for “safeguards, transparent process and effective oversight
mechanism for exercise of powers under sub-section (1)”. The Removal
Rules were consequently issued after a delay of several years, despite
various high court orders directing the PTA to comply with their statutory
obligations, as detailed in the paragraph below.

23. That the PTA’s penchant for excessive, arbitrary, and illegal actions
infringing upon the constitutional rights of citizens dates far back to over a
 decade ago — long before the promulgation of PECA 2016 and the
Removal Rules. PTA has consistently exhibited a failure to adhere to
statutory requirements that it is subject to. A stark and relevant example of
such deliberate disregard of its statutory obligations may be observed by the
PTA's persistent refusal to create rules for safeguarding the rights of
citizens, despite this being a statutorily mandated obligation under Section
37(2) of PECA 2016. The PTA has historically been happy to operate in an
unregulated, ad-hoc and arbitrary manner, until it is absolutely forced to
amend its ways.

24. That the potential and actual abuse of powers under Section 37(1) of PECA
2016 by the PTA in the absence of the required rules has also been observed
by the Islamabad High Court in the case of Muhammad Ashfaq Jutt v.
Federation of Pakistan (W.P. No. 3028 of 2020), wherein the Chief Justice
observed that “the Authority and the Federal Government have failed to
fulfill their respective statutory obligations under sub-section (2) of
section 37 of the Act of 2016, and thus the powers conferred under sub
section (1) ibid are being abused”. The Court also noted that the rules had
not yet been issued despite previous directions from the same court in the
case of Awami Workers Party v. PTA (W.P. No. 634 of 2019), wherein the
Chief Justice had directed the PTA to “fulfill its statutory obligations by
prescribing rules in the manner as has been provided under section 37(2)
of the Act of 2016”.
Copy of the Islamabad High Court’s order dated 15.10.2020 passed in
W.P No. 3028/2020 is attached herewith as Annexure “P-11”; Copy of the
Islamabad High Court’s order dated 12.09.2020 passed in W.P No.
634/2019 is attached herewith as Annexure “P-12”;

25. That in this instance, when the PTA did finally issue the (repealed) Removal
and Blocking of Unlawful Online Content (Procedure, Oversight and
Safeguards) Rules, 2020, the text of the Rules underwent several challenges
before the courts. Resultantly, the PTA, with the approval of the Respondent
No. 2 acting on behalf of the Federal Government, reissued an amended
version of the rules, i.e., the Removal Rules issued in 2021. The previous
version of the rules had been challenged and widely criticized by digital
rights activists and civil society stakeholders for not upholding the spirit of
the safeguards against misuse of power as envisioned under Section 37(2) of
PECA 2016. It is pertinent to highlight that Rule 3 of the revised 2021 Rules
subjects the PTA’s authority to “due process of law”, which was hitherto
absent from the rules. The PTA’s history of deliberately and maliciously
dragging its feet speaks volumes about its tendency to act against the best
interests of the citizens whom it regulates.
 Copy of the (repealed) Removal and Blocking of Unlawful Online
Content (Procedure, Oversight and Safeguards) Rules, 2020 is attached
herewith as Annexure “P-13”;

26. That despite this long and arduous journey leading to the issuance of the
much-needed Removal Rules in order to safeguard the rights of citizens, the
PTA continues to flagrantly disregard its obligations therein. PTA continues
to fail to respect the Removal Rules in letter and spirit, and instead appears
committed to disrupting user access to online telecommunication
systems based on its own whims and wishes.

27. That Rule 3 of the Removal Rules relates to the PTA’s limited authority to
“remove or block … access to an information” as allowed under the
aforementioned provisions of PECA 2016. The language of Rule 3 confers a
positive right on every person to “express and disseminate any Online
Content as enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution”. The first proviso
to Rule 3 further emphasizes the rights under Article 19, by stating that the
PTA “shall not restrict, disrupt flow or dissemination of any Online
Content unless it considers it necessary for the reasons as prescribed in
Section 37(1) of the [PECA] Act subject to due process of law”. Rule 3
goes on to state that:

“…the removal or block access to an Online Content would be considered

necessary in the interest of:
(i) “glory of Islam” if the online Content constitutes an act which is an offence
undechapter-XV of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860); or

(ii) “security of Pakistan” which shall bear the same meaning as given
under Article 260 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973;
or

(iii) “public order” if the Online Content constitutes an act which is an

offence under chapter-XIV of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of
1860), or the Online Content contains any fake or false information that
threatens the public order, public health and public safety or the online
Content constitutes an act which could lead to the occasions as described
under chapter-XI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898);
or

(iv) “decency and morality” if the Online Content constitutes an act which
is an offence under Section 292, 293, 294 and 509 of the Pakistan Penal
Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860); or
 (v) “integrity or defence of Pakistan” if the Online Content constitutes an
act which is an offence under chapter-VI of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act
XLV of 1860)”.

28. That it is pertinent to note that the PTA has absolutely no authority to block
or remove access to information or the dissemination of any Online Content
outside the narrowly defined scope of exceptions as laid down in Section 37
of PECA 2016 and further elaborated upon in Rule 3 of the Removal Rules.
Furthermore, Rule 3 of the Removal Rules clearly requires that any such
restriction or disruption of the flow or dissemination of any information or
online content is subject to due process of law. Additionally, it is relevant to
highlight that Section 37 of the PECA 2016 does not allow for any concept
of temporary suspension of information, as has been observed by the
Islamabad High Court in the case of M/s Proxima Beta Pte. Ltd. v/s
Federation of Pakistan (W.P. No. 1788/2020), via its order dated
14.07.2020. In the cited case, the PTA had not passed any formal order or
directions for the suspension of a mobile video game as required under
PECA 2016, but had unlawfully and arbitrarily caused the “temporary
suspension”. This temporary suspension was consequently struck down by
the court. In the instant Petition, if the Impugned Actions are seen to
constitute such a “temporary suspension”, then they are liable to be struck
down on that point as well, since no such power has been afforded to the
PTA under the law.
Copy of the Islamabad High Court’s order dated 14.07.2020 passed in
W.P No. 1788/2020 is attached herewith as Annexure “P-14”;

29. That other relevant legal provisions which concern the blocking or
restriction of internet access, or the closure of telecom services, are Sections
8 and 54 of the PTA Act. Section 8 read with sub-Section 8(2)(c) of the
PTA Act allows the Federal Government — defined as the Ministry of
Information Technology and Telecommunication Division under Section
2(fa) of the Act — to issue policy directives to the PTA “as and when it
considers necessary” for the “requirements of national security”.
Additionally, Section 54(3) of the Act empowers the Federal Government,
“upon proclamation of emergency by the President” to “cause suspension of
operation, functions or services … for such time as it may deem necessary”.
The PTA Act hence envisions a dual mechanism of the Federal
Government’s interference for the purposes of national security: Section
54(3) relates to periods of emergency as and when proclaimed by the
President, while Section 8 relates to general requirements of national
security.
30. That the distinction between Sections 8 and 54(3) was settled by the
Supreme Court in the case of Ministry of Information Technology and
Telecommunications vs C.M. Pak (Pvt.) Ltd. (reported as PLD 2020 SC
551), wherein a Division Bench of the court stated:

Section 54(3) is reactive and defensive in nature, coming into the

field when on account of grave circumstances in the country or its
provinces a Proclamation of Emergency is issued by the President
potentially involving suspension of Fundamental Rights and the
Provincial Government(s). Conversely, Section 8(2)(c) contemplates
pre-emptive action as it allows for the disruption of services before
any perceived threat in a specified area materialises. Further, under
Section 54(3) cellular services may according to the terms of the
Emergency be disrupted for a lengthy period of time over an
extensive area. In contrast, disruption of services under Section 8(2)
(c) is likely to be event specific and localised, in effect applying only
for a temporary period of time across a limited area. (emphasis
supplied).

Copy of the Supreme Court’s judgement reported as PLD 2020 SC 551 is

attached herewith as Annexure “P-15”;

31. That the language of Sections 8(2)(c) and 54(3) and the Supreme Court’s
order in PLD 2020 SC 551 clearly establishes that Section 54(3) can only
apply upon a proclamation of emergency (which is not the case here) and
Section 8(2)(c) must apply only for a temporary period across a limited
area. The Impugned Actions of the PTA are continuing and are affecting
citizens nation-wide (including the Petitioners), and therefore cannot by any
stretch of the imagination said to fall under the purview of the powers of
Section 8(2)(c). Even otherwise, there is nothing on record by any of the
Respondents to demonstrate that the continuing Impugned Actions are a
result of any lawful exercise of authority by way of a policy directive issued
by the Federal Government acting either through the Respondent No. 1 or
the Respondent No. 2. Hence, the Impugned Actions are not legitimate
under the provisions of the PTA Act, the PECA 2016, or the Removal
Rules.

32. That despite the set of safeguards and narrow exceptions built into the legal
regime governing the PTA’s authority to restrict or block the flow or
dissemination of information, the PTA undertook the Impugned Actions
without regard to any concerns of legal propriety or legal cover. This is
evidenced by the fact that till date the PTA has issued no notice or
 notification of the persistent restriction of access to X/Twitter, that it has
issued no reasons for said restriction, and that it continues to remain silent in
the face of repeated questions and concerns raised by various journalists and
news agencies. Despite being solely responsible for regulating
telecommunications, the PTA has indicated that the Impugned Actions were
allegedly initiated on the directions of the Respondent No. 1/Federal
Ministry of Interior to implement a nation-wide ban on the use of X/Twitter.
However, the current Interior Minister has reported eschewed any
responsibility or ownership for the Impugned Actions, stating that “The
erratic functioning of X (formerly Twitter) or any other social media
platform comes under the jurisdiction of Pakistan Telecommunication
Authority”, and thereby denying the issuance of any such directives to PTA.
The Minister has also reportedly stated to have “no knowledge” of the
Impugned Actions, and that “it [the Impugned Actions] doesn’t come under
Interior [Ministry] [sic]”. [Copies of News Articles containing the
Minister’s remarks are attached herein as Annexure “P-7/B”]. PTA,
being an independent regulatory authority, does not act as a subordinate
authority of the federal government and is solely responsible for its own
actions, and hence cannot absolve itself by externalizing the blame to the
other Respondents. The Respondents’ collective avoidance of taking
responsibility for directing the implementation of the Impugned Actions
appears to be a smokescreen designed to obfuscate the real issue at hand,
which is the violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioners by means
of an entirely unlawful and arbitrary abuse of power by the PTA and the
other Respondents.
Copies of News Articles reporting the PTA’s failure to take any
accountability for its actions are attached herewith as Annexure “P-16”;

33. That assuming without conceding that PTA had adhered to the due process
of law to which they are mandated, it is submitted that the Impugned
Actions still do not constitute a necessary restriction allowed under PECA
2016 and the Removal Rules. Articles 19 and 19-A of the Constitution
supersede any secondary legislation, including PECA 2016 and the
Removal Rules, and require that any reasonable restrictions on these
protected rights must be only imposed to the minimum necessary extent.
These principles of necessity and proportionality have been observed and
upheld by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 24.11.2022 in Civil
Petition No. 3506/2020 which related to restrictions placed under the
PEMRA Ordinance, where the court observed that “The reasonable
restrictions must also be proportionate in that the legitimate objective
cannot reasonably be achieved through a means less restrictive of the
right protected by the Constitution. The reasonable restrictions should
 therefore not only be rationally connected to, but also be no more than
necessary to accomplish, any of the legitimate objectives mentioned in
Articles 19 and 19A of the Constitution.” PTA’s actions are in direct
defiance of well settled law that fundamental rights are incapable of being
divested or abridged. PTA remains under an obligation to ensure that its
actions are reasonable and proportionate to the scope of powers conferred
upon it, even if they had acted in accordance with the statutory requirement
of due process of law.
Copy of the Supreme Court’s judgement dated 24.11.2022 in Civil Petition
No. 3506/2020 is attached herewith as Annexure “P-17”;

34. That the twin principles of necessity and proportionality are also enshrined
in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”),
which Pakistan ratified on 23.06.2010. General Comment No. 34 of the
ICCPR relates specifically to freedoms of opinion and expression, stating in
paragraph 22 that any restrictions on the right of freedom of expression
must conform to “the strict tests of necessity and proportionality”.
Copy of the General Comment No. 34 of the ICCPR is attached herewith
as Annexure “P-18”;

35. That General Comment No. 34 of the ICCPR also states in paragraph 34
(citing General Comment No. 27), that “restrictive measures must conform
to the principle of proportionality; they must be appropriate to achieve
their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instrument
amongst those which might achieve their protective function; they must be
proportionate to the interest to be protected...The principle of
proportionality has to be respected not only in the law that frames the
restrictions but also by the administrative and judicial authorities in
applying the law”.

36. That this Honourable Court, in C.P. No. D-436 of 2024 has passed an
interim order dated 24.01.2024 wherein the court observed that the
respondents therein, including the PTA, are obligated to operate within the
confines of the PTA Act and the Removal Rules, and consequently
restrained the respondents, including the PTA, from causing any “disruption
or shutting down of mobile internet and broadband services”, and directed
them to “ensure smooth and uninterrupted mobile internet and broadband
services to have access to social media platforms/websites”. That the
Petitioners in the instant petition have been meted similarly arbitrary and
unlawful treatment by the PTA’s Impugned Actions, and are entitled to
similar relief.
 Copy of this Honourable Court’s order dated 24.01.2024 passed in CP No.
D-436/2024 is attached herewith as Annexure “P-19”;

37. That the Petitioners do not have any alternative or efficacious remedy, as
the mechanism under the provisions of the PTA Act, PECA 2016, and the
Removal Rules can only be availed when there is an order or decision in the
field which may be challenged. In the absence of any verbal or written
statement, order, or decision by any of the Respondents, the Petitioners are
constrained to approach this Honourable Court and seek the protection of
their fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 19-A of the Constitution, and
directions restraining the Respondents from continuing to act in an arbitrary,
illegal, and mala fide manner.

GROUNDS
A. That freedom of expression is a fundamental right and it reinforces all other
rights guaranteed under the Constitution, 1973. Free speech, as well as the
right to receive information under Article 19-A of the Constitution, are
essential for the development, progress and prosperity of any civilized
democratic society and suppression thereof is unconstitutional and contrary
to democratic values. PTA’s arbitrary and unlawful blanket ban on access to
X/Twitter infringes on the Petitioners’ rights to freely express and receive
information, rendering PTA’s actions unconstitutional, and without any
lawful authority.

B. That restrictions on accessing X/Twitter constitute a flagrant violation of

Article 18 of the Constitution, as they have a direct detrimental impact on
political and economic freedoms. X/Twitter is used by millions of
Pakistanis — including the Petitioners — and is the most effective and
useful medium for not only accessing information and self-expression, but
also for conducting business and earning income. PTA’s blanket ban on
X/Twitter in the absence of any exceptions under Article 19 of the
Constitution, or Section 37 of the PECA 2016, or Rule 3 of the 2021 Rules
being triggered, violates the PTA’s governing mandate, and grossly violates
the economic and constitutional rights and freedoms of the Petitioners and
countless other Pakistanis.

C. That the Impugned Actions fail the test of reasonability for a restriction of
fundamental rights. The exceptions to Article 19 are to be interpreted and
applied narrowly, and in the least restrictive manner, and are to be avoided
unless absolutely necessary. PTA, via the Impugned Actions, continues to
impose the most restrictive and repressive measures without any
 lawful authority, and without regard to due process of law. The glaring lack
of any written or recorded reasons for this restriction further delegitimizes
any possible necessity of the Impugned Actions that the PTA may choose to
argue. The Supreme Court has held in its judgement dated 24.11.2022 in
Civil Petition No. 3506/2022 that any restriction of fundamental rights must
be “interpreted in a forward looking manner in order to persistently
advance and promote the constitutional values of tolerance, freedom,
equality, democracy and social justice … and any ambiguity as to the
reasonableness of a restriction must be resolved in favor of protecting the
exercise of the fundamental right rather than enforcing the restriction.”
The Supreme Court has also stated in 2011 PLD SC 997 that reasonable
restriction “does not mean prohibition or prevention completely”. The
Impugned Actions fail on this ground as well, as access to X/Twitter has
been completely restricted across the board for users nation-wide.

D. That the Impugned Actions fail the test of proportionality for a restriction of
fundamental rights. The Supreme Court in its judgement dated 24.11.2022
in Civil Petition No. 3506/2022 has stated that “the reasonable restrictions
must also be proportionate in that the legitimate objective cannot
reasonably be achieved through a means less restrictive of the right
protected by the Constitution. The reasonable restrictions should
therefore not only be rationally connected to, but also be no more than
necessary to accomplish any of the legitimate objectives mentioned in
Articles 19 an 19A of the Constitution.”

E. That the Impugned Actions do not constitute any kind of reasonable or

proportional restriction on the Petitioners’ fundamental rights, as it has been
held by the Supreme Court in 2011 PLD SC 997 that reasonable restriction
“does not mean prohibition or prevention completely”.

F. That the Impugned Actions are without any lawful authority, as neither the
provisions of Section 8(2)(c) nor Section 54(3) are applicable, as the
Impugned Actions go far beyond the scope of powers conferred on to the
Respondents under these provisions. The Impugned Actions constitute a
national restriction of internet access to X/Twitter for an indefinite time
period, as is evident from the fact that the restriction is continuing till date.
The Impugned Actions thus fall squarely outside the purview of Section
8(2)(c). Similarly, Section 54(3) is only applicable in case of a proclamation
of emergency by the President, and is thus not applicable to grant any legal
cover to the Impugned Actions.

G. That the timing and nature of PTA’s Impugned Actions reeks of ulterior
motives which are questionable at best and malicious at worst. In the
 absence of any cogent reasons indicating the PTA’s adherence to the due
process of law, the requirement of the principles of necessity and
proportionality as laid down in the ICCPR and observed by the Supreme
Court, the required test reasonability for any restriction of fundamental
rights as laid down by the Supreme Court, and the continuing restrictions on
internet access to X/Twitter, the Impugned Actions can only be described as
unlawful, arbitrary, maliciously driven, violative of constitutional rights and
statutory protections, and thus liable to struck down. PTA's arbitrary limits
on speech and expression contradict the proper understanding of these
restrictions and the way in which they are to be implemented, leaving them
open to unduly wide interpretations that contradict the letter and spirit of
Articles 19 and 19-A the Constitution of 1973.

H. That there exists no alternative and/or efficacious remedy except by way of

the instant Petition.

I. That the Petitioners humbly seek this Honourable Court’s leave to raise and
agitate additional grounds at the time of hearing of the instant Petition.

PRAYERS

I. DECLARE that the Impugned Actions of restricting or blocking access

to X/Twitter are unlawful, arbitrary, and violative of the letter and spirit
of Articles 19 and 19-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973;

II. DECLARE that the Impugned Actions are in blatant and flagrant
violation of the provisions of the PTA Act, the PECA 2016, and the
2021 Rules;

III. DECLARE that any act of wholly restricting internet access to the
entirety of any social media platform (a blanket ban) exceeds the power
of regulation afforded to the PTA under PECA 2016 and the Removal
Rules, and hence would be deemed to be an unlawful and
unconstitutional abuse of power by the PTA;

IV. DIRECT the Respondents to immediately restore public access to

X/Twitter and any other social media platforms which have been
similarly restricted or blocked in an arbitrary and unlawful manner;

V. PERMANENTLY RESTRAIN the Respondents from arbitrarily,

unlawfully, unreasonably, unnecessarily, and/or disproportionately
restricting or blocking internet access to X/Twitter or any other social
 media platforms except within the strict confines of the applicable law
and rules, and the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973;

VI. GRANT the costs of the instant Petition;

VII. GRANT any other relief as may be deemed fit and proper by this
Honourable Court in the circumstances of the instant Petition.

Prayed with profound respect in the interest of justice, fair play and equality.

PETITIONERS

Through their duly authorized Attorney

KARACHI

DATED: __.__.2024

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS

Documents filed Annexures “P-1” to “P-___”

Documents relied upon As per list attached

Address of the Petitioner for

As stated in the title page
service

Address of the Petitioners’ ABDUL MOIZ JAFERII:

Advocate F-66/3, Park-lane, Block 5, Clifton, Karachi

DRAWN BY ME
 IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH, AT KARACHI
Constitutional Petition No. D- Of 2024

MUHAMMAD ZARRAR KHUHRO & OTHERS

…………………………………………………………PETITIONERS

VERSUS

THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS

………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION

I, Muhammad Usman, Son of Faqeer Muhammad, Muslim, Adult, Resident of

House No. K-100, K Area, Korangi, Karachi, do hereby state on oath as under:

1. That I am the duly authorized Attorney of the Petitioners in the instant

Petition and am well conversant with the facts of the instant case.

2. That the instant Petition has been drafted and presented under my
instructions, and I fully endorse the views expressed therein. The contents
of the Petition, in so far as the facts and prayers are concerned, are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, whereas I have been
 informed by my counsel of the grounds upon which the Petition is filed, and
verily believe them to be true.

3. That for the sake of brevity, it is hereby stated that the contents of the said
Petition be read with this affidavit and be made part and parcel of the same.

4. That if the Petitioners are denied relief in terms of this Petition, they shall be
seriously prejudiced and irreparably harmed.

5. That whatever is stated above is correct and true to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF

SINDH, AT KARACHI
Constitutional Petition No. D- Of 2024

MUHAMMAD ZARRAR KHUHRO & OTHERS

…………………………………………………………… PETITIONERS

VERSUS

THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS

………………………………………………………… RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION UNDER RULE 9, CHAPTER III-B, VOLUME V

OF THE HIGH COURT RULES

It is prayed on behalf of the Petitioners above-named that for the facts

and circumstances contained in the accompanying affidavit, this
Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to fix the instant Petition and
all pending applications on __.__.2024 as the matter is extremely urgent
in nature.

KARACHI

DATED:
 ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS

IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF

SINDH, AT KARACHI
Constitutional Petition No. D- Of 2024

MUHAMMAD ZARRAR KHUHRO & OTHERS

…………………………………………………………… PETITIONERS

VERSUS

THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS

………………………………………………………… RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION UNDER RULE 9,

CHAPTER III-B, VOLUME V OF THE HIGH COURT RULES

I, Muhammad Usman, Son of Faqeer Muhammad, Muslim, Adult, Resident of

House No. K-100, K Area, Korangi, Karachi, do hereby state on oath as under:

1. That I am the duly authorized Attorney of the Petitioners and am well

conversant with the facts of the instant case.

2. That for the sake of brevity, the contents of the Application as well as the
main Petition may be read as an integral part of this affidavit.
 3. That the Petitioners are journalists whose constitutional and economic rights
are being violated and infringed upon as a result of the malicious, arbitrary
and illegal actions of the Respondents. The Impugned Actions as described
in the underlying Petition are continuing and the Respondents have
deliberately and repeatedly failed to protect the rights of the Petitioners. The
Petitioners have a reasonable apprehension that the arbitrary and unlawful
actions of the Respondents will not cease and may be exacerbated. If the
Respondents are not immediately and urgently directed to reverse the
Impugned Actions, the Petitioners will continue to be deprived of their
constitutional and statutory rights and protections. Hence, the urgency.

4. That whatever has been stated above is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF

SINDH, AT KARACHI
Constitutional Petition No. D- Of 2024

MUHAMMAD ZARRAR KHUHRO & OTHERS

…………………………………………………………… PETITIONERS

VERSUS

THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS

………………………………………………………… RESPONDENTS

EXEMPTION APPLICATION

It is hereby humbly submitted that photocopies of the Annexures be accepted by

this Honourable Court, and the Petitioners in question be exempted from supplying
the original/certified copies of the same. It is hereby stated that the photocopies so
supplied are the true and correct copies of the original documents. If it so pleases
the Honourable High Court, the said original documents shall be produced, if
possible, on the directions of this Honourable Court, when so ever it gives
instructions.
This prayer is made in the interest of justice.

KARACHI

DATED:

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS

IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF

SINDH, AT KARACHI
Constitutional Petition No. D- Of 2024

MUHAMMAD ZARRAR KHUHRO

…………………………………………………………… PETITIONERS

VERSUS

THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS

………………………………………………………… RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF EXEMPTION APPLICATION

I, Muhammad Usman, Son of Faqeer Muhammad, Muslim, Adult, Resident of

House No. K-100, K Area, Korangi, Karachi, do hereby state on oath as under:

1. That I am the duly authorized Attorney of the Petitioners and am well

conversant with the facts of the instant case.

2. That for the sake of brevity, the contents of the Application as well as the
main Petition may be read as an integral part of this affidavit.
3. That the Petitioners be exempted from supplying the original/certified
copies of the Annexures as supplied with the petition. It is hereby stated that
the photocopies so supplied are the true and correct copies of the original
documents. If it so pleases the Honourable High Court, the said original
documents shall be produced, if possible, on the directions of this
Honourable Court, whensoever it gives such instructions.

4. That whatever has been stated hereinabove is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, information and belief.

DEPONENT

IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF

SINDH, AT KARACHI
Constitutional Petition No. D- Of 2024

MUHAMMAD ZARRAR KHUHRO & OTHERS

…………………………………………………………PETITIONERS

VERSUS

THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS

....………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 R/W SECTION

151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

For the facts and reasons stated in the Memo of Petition as well as the
accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed on behalf of the
Petitioners that this Honourable Court may be pleased to DIRECT the
Respondents to immediately restore nation-wide internet access to
X/Twitter, and RESTRAIN the Respondents from restricting, disrupting or
blocking internet access to X/Twitter or any other social media platforms
 except strictly within the narrow exceptions permitted under the law, till the
pendency of the instant Petition.

Ad-interim orders are most humbly solicited. This prayer is made in the
interest of justice, fair-play and equity.

KARACHI
DATED: __.__.2024
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS

IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF

SINDH, AT KARACHI
Constitutional Petition No. D- Of 2024

MUHAMMAD ZARRAR KHUHRO & OTHERS

………………………………………………………… PETITIONERS

VERSUS

THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS

……………………………………………………… RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39

RULE 1 & 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908

I, Muhammad Usman, Son of Faqeer Muhammad, Muslim, Adult, Resident of

House No. K-100, K Area, Korangi, Karachi, do hereby state on oath as under:

1. That I am the duly authorized Attorney of the Petitioners and am well

conversant with the facts of the instant case.
2. That the accompanying Application has been filed under my specific
instructions and the contents of the same are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

3. That for the sake of brevity, the contents of the Application as well as the
main Petition may be read as an integral part of this affidavit.

4. That the Petitioners have made out a strong prima-facie case for the relief
prayed for. Unless the accompanying application is allowed by this
Honourable Court, the Petitioners shall be seriously prejudiced and face
irreparable harm.

5. That whatever is stated above is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT