r Case Judgement · Benjamin Cardozo " that's hoW Justice free dorn condition, of nearly every 0th er f peech. A right guaranteed referred to freedom of speech. . fI . . . ht to freedom o s ti n civil or criminal, courts o ~w as 6. At the core of this dispute is the rig is not under Article 19 of the Constitution. In any ac oh ' 'ght to freedom of speech 'ght h' · ri e t that e · 15 n ells out certain restrictions on t guardians of the Constitution, _mu_st e~sur • d by law to the extent that the breached so easily. Our Const1tut1on itself sp . . restr,cte stand n fl lam (ii) integrity security or . when it states that Freedom of speec h ca 1 same would undennine any of the followi~g: (i) ~ oryf:re/ S~ates; (iii) public order, 1th .~ of or incitement to an defense of Pakistan or its amicable relations w d as offences through decency or morality; (iv) contempt of court; (v) commissi;~ 1 f Axact that what .1e co been have offence. Some, if not all, of these restrictions 0 th e caCse t.t t' n In such a different statutes. In the current situation it is . simply· notin the ons I u 10 . h even . f given Mr. Toor said breached any one of the exclusions O s~eec p 1 freedom situation it is clear then that a court must guard the right to ena · 499 of the Pakistan . . on section . . based prtmar1 ' . . fi d ly more closely. Axact's action 1s Code and prima facie even the conditions given in that section may not be sat,s ,e · · t wh'1ch has been filed had . much respect a cursory look at the comp lam 7. With begged certain questions to be answered before the right to freedom of speech ~as curtailed. These questions included, how does what was said impact Axact even m a prima facie manner? Was there even remotely any evidence of damage caused ':5 a consequence of was said? If Axact was aggrieved then why has not Axact, as reqmred under the companies legislation, acted in accordance with the legislation to initiate criminal proceedings? No resolution passed by the company in its general body, or Board of Directors is on record or was ever obtained. How on earth did the 2 persons who have filed the complaint, say that they were aggrieved by the alleged defamation when they were in essence some unknown employees of a subsidiary company of Axact? Why was a criminal complaint being filed in Karachi, albeit the law allows the same to be filed, however it would have been more convenient for both parties to litigate in Islamabad? The court should have the above basics, at the very least, before taking cognizance of a criminal complaint that is a challenge to the fundamental right of freedom to speech. We must also not lose sight of the fact that initiation of unnecessary litigation, causes massive burden and inconvenience to the parties involved and further burden on an already struggling criminal justice system. A guidance to the learned trial courts in respect of such cases is my reason to drift from the rule as I am of the opinion that such guidance, subject to the wisdom of the Supreme Court, may assist our learned trial courts in cases impacting freedom of speech. 8. Mr. Toor and Axact in their own ways have contributed extensively towards defending the right of freedom of expression and speech in our country. When persons of such profile and large admirer base come into conflict for minor, insignificant reasons, it no doubt causes a negative impact on the right of freedom of expression. In all honesty, it seems that this is more a case of conflict of egos than real criminal harm. http://www.plsbeta.com/LawOnline/law/content21.asp?Casedes=2024K3045 11/7/2024 8:51 :44 AM