C.P. No. 3506/2020 9 A plain reading of Section 26 of the PEMRA Ordinance read with Rules 8 and 10 of the Councils of Complaints Rules shows that the function of receiving and reviewing “complaints against any aspects of programmes” or “such matters as referred to it by the Chairman or the Authority” [PEMRA] and of rendering opinion on “such complaints” or “such matters” is assigned by the legislature to the Councils of Complaints, each of which consists of a chairperson and five members including at least two women, who all are citizens of eminence from the general public. The “opinion” of a Council of Complaints rendered under section 26(2) of the Ordinance is then placed before PEMRA, which after giving due consideration to the said opinion is to decide the matter in accordance with the parameters spelled out in Section 27(a) of the Ordinance. Likewise, in the case of any “recommendations" made by a Council of Complaints under section 26(5) of the PEMRA Ordinance, PEMRA may approve the recommendations or disagree with the same, while recording reasons in writing for the same, and pass such order as deem appropriate or refer the matter back to the Council concerned for reconsideration, under Rule 10 of the Councils of Complaints Rules. 13. Under Section 26(2) of the PEMRA Ordinance, the Councils of Complaint are empowered to receive and review complaints made by persons or organizations from the general public against “any aspects of programmes” and render their opinions on them. The expression “any aspects of programmes” is wide enough to include the violation of any provision of the PEMRA Ordinance, rules, regulations or code of conduct, in respect of programmes. It can, therefore, be hardly argued that the grounds provided for making an order prohibiting broadcast or rebroadcast of a programme in Section 27(a) of the PEMRA Ordinance do not fall within the expression “any aspects of programmes” used in Section 26(2). It has, however, been argued on behalf of PEMRA that the power of the Councils of Complaints and PEMRA to review the contents of a programme on the grounds mentioned in Section 27(a) is concurrent. We are not convinced with this argument. As discussed above the scope of regulatory framework under the PEMRA Ordinance is two tiered; comprising the public regulatory body (Councils of Complaints) and the governmental regulatory body (PEMRA). Further, if PEMRA had been considered suitable to make the initial review of the contents of programmes on the grounds mentioned in Section 27(a), then there would have been no plausible reason to restrict the power of PEMRA in respect of other grounds. Acceptance of this argument would negate the very