C.P. No. 3506/2020 30. 19 A work of art and literature, which includes a play or drama broadcasted on the electronic media, is usually considered a strong and effective medium to break the silence on social taboos; therefore, it is not to be labelled as “obscene” or “vulgar” readily without appraising the message it intends to convey.26 In this perspective, one would need to see whether that message tends to promote or glorify the conduct or behavior which is offensive to the commonly accepted standards of decency, or it tends to condemn or deprecate such conduct or behavior. Such a review is to be undertaken on an objective assessment of the play or drama as a whole, not on the basis of pick and choose of its parts from here and there. If the ultimate message of the play or drama under review passes the test of being not offensive to the commonly accepted standards of decency, the review of a particular part thereof which depiction is necessary to convey the message effectively must be lenient and tolerant. However, where the obscenity of such part is too pronounced to eschew, only the objectionable part should be prohibited from being broadcasted and directed to be suitably modified, and the broadcast or rebroadcast of the complete play or drama must not be prohibited. In view of the applicability of the principle of proportionality to restrictions on the rights guaranteed by the Constitution as expounded above, such an approach is necessary to protect the exercise of the fundamental right to freedom of expression and right to information to the maximum extent possible and to enforce the restrictions on the exercise of these rights to the minimum. Judge Announced on 12th April, 2023, at Islamabad. Judge Judge Approved for reporting Sadaqat 26 Ramamurthy v. State of Mysore AIR 1954 Mys 164 (DB).