C.P. No. 3506/2020 18 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.22 28. The restriction imposed by law, i.e. the PEMRA Ordinance, on the right to freedom of expression in relation to any programme including a play or drama, or any advertisement, broadcasted on the electronic media, on the ground of it being “obscene”, “vulgar” or “offensive to the commonly accepted standards of decency”, is defended to achieve the legitimate objectives of securing the interest of “public decency” and “public morality” as mentioned in Article 19 of the Constitution. This restriction, however, should not be more than necessary in its scope and applicability, to accomplish the said objectives. Additionally, while it is accepted that what constitutes appropriate limitation on freedom of expression to protect morals does vary from society to society, it must be kept in mind that the concept of decency and morality is derived from many social, philosophical and religious traditions; therefore, the limitations for the purpose of protecting public decency and public morality must be based on principles not deriving exclusively from a single tradition,23 and any such limitations must be understood in the light of universality of human rights and the principle of non-discrimination.24 29. The expressions “obscene”, “vulgar” and “offensive to the commonly accepted standards of decency” as used in Section 27(a) of the PEMRA Ordinance, are actually interconnected. Only that form of an expression can be said to be “obscene” or “vulgar” which is “offensive to the commonly accepted standards of decency”. Thus, the “commonly accepted standards of decency” in the community is the benchmark to determine whether or not a particular form of the expression of one’s thought, idea or opinion in a play or drama is “obscene” or “vulgar”. The important thing to understand is that the commonly accepted standard of decency in a community is a “standard of tolerance, not taste”.25 It is not what the people generally think is right for them to see but what they would not tolerate others being exposed to it on the basis of the degree of harm to “public decency” or “public morality” that may flow from such exposure. Further, the expression “commonly accepted standards of decency” must be understood to be the contemporary standards as the social mores and sensibilities change over time. 22 R v. Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103 (Supreme Court of Canada). General Comment No. 22 of the UN Human Rights Committee. 24 General Comment No. 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee. 25 R v. Butler, [1992] 1 SCR 452 (Supreme Court of Canada). 23