' SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.---Through this Constitutional Petition, the petitioner has prayed as under:-
(I) Direct the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to take action in terms of the Ordinance against the respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 for politicizing the culture of the people of Pakistan by referring Sindhi topi as Sindh Card in TV show "Meray Mutabiq" aired by GEO-TV/Respondent No,4 on 21-11-2009;
(II) Direct the respondents Nos.4, S and 6 to seek regret/apology from the people of Pakistan for politicizing their culture and repeatedly show regret/apology in GEO-TV/ respondent No,4 at appropriate timings and also publish a similar regret/apology in the daily newspaper "fang" on the front Page;
(III) Direct the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to ensure that all cultures and heritages of the people of Pakistan should be preserved and promoted and not be politicized through any form of media by the respondents Nos.4 and 5 and their licensees and in event of any contrary action the license of the violating licensee be cancelled;
(IV) Direct the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to take requisite action in terms of section 27 of the Ordinance against the respondents Nos.4, 5 and 6 for politicizing the culture of Pakistan which is likely to crate hatred among the people and is likely to disturb public peace and tranquility;
(V) Grant costs;
(VI) Grant any further or better relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Briefly the facts as narrated by the petitioner in the memo of petition are that on 21-11-2009 the respondent No,6 during the TV Show "Mere Mutabiq" aired on GEO-TV politicized the culture of the people of Sindh by referring the Sindhi traditional cap, worn by the President of Pakistan during his visit to Kabul, as political card. The respondent No,6 along with his guest speaker namely Muhammad Saleh Zafar, during the analysis of prevailing political scenario of the country, politicized the culture of the people of Pakistan in TV Show "Mere Mutabiq", the text whereof reads as follows:-- "Muhammad Saleh Zafar:-- Ye boat ajeeb wo gareeb he ke Saddar Pakistan eik official visit per Kabul gaey thay. Un ko wahan guard of honor bhe pesh kiya gaya: Tamam jo taqaze hote hain sarkari daure ke wo pore kiye gaey ' Doctor Sahab, Kamal ke baat suneye.. .....
' Doctor Sahab, Kamal ke baat suneye............
' Ke, Saddar Pakistan he Jo libas pehan rakha tha wo eik khas ilaka ka libas tha, Is ka matlab ye howa ke inho ne apna wo ilaka ka Jo taeluq ha us CARD ko istamal karne ke koshish ke hai".
Dr. Shahid Masood/Respondent No,6 ' Nahe wo tu abhe wo tu mera khayal hai abhe jo Central Executive we pechley kuch dinoo se wo phir nazar arahe hain wo Sindh ke topie ke saath our wo acha hai Lakin aik dum se dobara restart kiya hai inho netu Sindh Card key taraf shayad ja rahe hai party ki kayadat ye tu bilkul wazey taur per nazar aya balkey Kabul key andar bhi is doorey key dooran..."
' Hence this petition.
3. It is, inter-alia, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the culture values and traditions of the people of Pakistan should be kept away from the politics and the same should be protected and any attempt to politicize the respective cultural entities, which also hurt the sentiments of the public, should not be permitted in the larger interest of public of Pakistan. It is next argued that politicizing of culture by the respondent No,6 violates the Constitution of Pakistan, which protects the life or liberty of the citizen of Pakistan. It is further contended that the remarks expressed on the cultural values of the people of Pakistan will damage the very foundation of unity among the nation. The basis of separate Estate as emphasized by our Founder Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in his speech on 11-8-1947 that the citizens of Pakistan are free to practice their religion caste, creed and culture without any discrimination and politicization. It is further emphasized by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Leaders of many countries of the world go on official foreign tours by wearing their cultural dresses but no objection is raised by the world media or media within their respective cultural outfits are politicized. It is the duty of the Government Functionaries to deal with the media and/or their license holders of the terms and conditions of the Rules and Regulations made and if any violation is committed by each of them, they are morally and legally responsible to take action against the offending bodies.
4. After service of notice, no para wise comments have been filed by the respondents Nos.1 to 3, while the respondents Nos.4 to 6 have filed their respective comments/reply which are on record.
5. Mr. Kashif Hanif, learned counsel for the PEMRA and Mr.Ashraf Ali Khan Mughal, learned D.A.-G.
Contended that since the PEMRA has its own Rules and the Ordinance, therefore, the petitioner should have exhausted his remedy first which the petitioner failed to do so and this petition is also not maintainable, which is liable to be dismissed with cost. According to them, the respondents did not violate any Article of the Constitution of Pakistan by any stretch of imagination.
6. Mr. Irfanullah G. Ali, learned counsel, for the respondents Nos.4 and 5, contended that this petition is not maintainable on the ground that alternate remedy is available to the petitioner, under .The PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 and the Rules made thereunder. According to the learned counsel, it is settled principle of law that the High Court, has to be specifically cautious in exercising its Constitutional Jurisdiction when other adequate remedy is available to the party invoking that jurisdiction. It is further contended by the learned counsel that it is an admitted fact that the President of Pakistan worn a dress and cap which indicated towards a specific tradition of Province while he was on official visit to Kabul. It is next argued by the learned counsel that the President of Pakistan is a symbol of Federation and he should have been in a National Dress, which had been worn by our Founder of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah i,e, Karakuli Cap and Sherwani on any Official functions. In support of his case, learned, counsel has relied upon the case of The Lahore Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. Pir Saif Ullah Shah (PLD 1959 SC (Pak) 210), Wali Muhammad Khoso v. Federation of Pakistan (2010 CLC 546) and Ch. Muhammad Ismail v. Fazal Zada, Civil Judge, Lahore (PLD 1996 SC 246).
7. Mr. Saleem Mangrio, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No,6, contended that this petition is not maintainable, firstly the respondent No,6 is a private person and the Constitutional Petition does not lie upon a private person to redress the grievance of the petitioner by invoking in Constitutional Jurisdiction. Secondly the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition. Since the alleged comments made by the respondent No,6 did not effect directly to the petitioner, which compelled the petitioner to file this Constitutional Petition and thirdly in presence of alternate remedy available in the PEMRA Ordinance and Rules made thereunder, the petitioner should have exhausted his remedy first, this petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No,6, the petitioner has himself politicized the matter by misinterpreting and misrepresenting the facts through this petition. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner has made self-suited definition by picking up the different words, which favours the petitioner from the whole conversation between the respondent No,6 and the guest. It is next argued by the learned counsel that if the respondent No,6 made any violation and/or politicized any culture of Province, the President Secretariat should have taken an action against the respondent No,6, but the Presidency is kept silent.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire record with their able assistance as well as gone through the case law cited.
9. Before we come to the conclusion, it is noteworthy to examine the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) Ordinance 2002, in which the petitioner has the alternate and efficacious remedy, which he can avail for, redress of his grievance, which reads as under:-- "26. Council of Complaints:
(5) The Councils may recommend to the .Authority appropriate action of censure, fine against a broadcast or CTV station or licensee for violation of the codes of programme content and advertisements as approved by the Authority as may be prescribed":
10. It may be observed that the High Courts are already huddled up with thousands of cases under the prevailing circumstances, if all the litigants are permitted to take all sorts of their disputes to the High Courts without first availing the other remedies available to them, under the law, it will not only unnecessarily increase the workload of the High Courts but would also defeat the provisions of law by which the said remedies have been made available. Such a spree on the part of the litigants would, if we may say so, amount to abuse of the Constitutional Jurisdiction which is to be exercised by the High Courts in exceptional cases to provide justice which cannot be otherwise obtained by the aggrieved parties.
11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner should have availed the alternate and efficacious remedy available to him, under the law, instead, of invoking the Extraordinary Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly this petition is dismissed.