YouTube Ban
The District and Sessions Court of Islamabad has temporarily suspended the ban on the YouTube channels of two prominent journalists, Matiullah Jan and Asad Toor, in a significant development highlighting concerns over media freedom and due legal process in Pakistan.
The decision was announced on Friday by Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka, during the hearing of appeals filed by both journalists. The appeals were submitted in response to an earlier order by Judicial Magistrate Abbas Shah, who had directed the blocking of 27 YouTube channels.
The ban, initiated at the request of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency, had included the personal channels of Jan and Toor—both known for their outspoken journalism and critical commentary.
The journalists’ legal teams contended that the order to block their channels was not only abrupt but also procedurally flawed. They argued that neither journalist was issued a formal notice prior to the order, nor were they provided with an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the fundamental right to a fair trial as guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan.
In its written ruling, the court acknowledged the strength of these arguments. Judge Majoka noted that, based on the record presented, the magistrate’s earlier decision lacked the basic requirement of prior notice and a hearing. The court emphasized that any action infringing on fundamental rights—such as freedom of expression or fair trial—must strictly adhere to legal protocols.
Consequently, the Sessions Court suspended the previous blocking order, but only in relation to the channels operated by Matiullah Jan and Asad Toor. The court further issued a formal notice to the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency, directing it to submit a response by July 21.
In separate one-page interim rulings on each appeal, the judge reiterated that the applicants’ fundamental rights may have been infringed upon due to the absence of procedural transparency.
The court found that the claim of a violated right to a fair trial was substantiated enough to warrant interim relief.
The case is now set to continue as the court awaits the response from the cyber crime agency. This development has been welcomed by press freedom advocates, who view the temporary suspension as a positive step toward safeguarding journalists’ rights in the digital space.
