MUHAMMAD ASLAM SALEEIVII, ADVOCATE vs THE PAKISTAN TELEVISION

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, C. J.-This constitutional petition under Article 199 (1) (a) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, has been filed by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Salami, who besides being an Advocate, a citizen and a tax-payer is also an office-bearer of the Jamaat-i-Islami (Para, 1 of the petition) which is one of the members of an Alliance formed by nine political patties who are contesting the forthcoming general elections jointly. (Ref. Para. 7 cf the petition). The said Alliance is known as Pakistan National Alliance (hereinafter called the P. N. A. Or the Alliance). The respondents in the writ petition are : (1) the Pakistan Television Corporation, Lahore, and (2) the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, Lahore.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length we had passed a short order on 2-3- 1977, to the following effect : "For the reasons to be recorded later, the writ petition is accepted in terms that the respondents are directed to do what they are required to do by law, viz., "Maintain balance" in the news and other programmes relating to the election campaign of the various political parties or groups of such parties, including the Pakistan National Alliance, participating in the forthcoming election, bring to public awareness the wide range of the significant activity of the aforementioned election campaign and to present the news in relation thereto in as factual, accurate and impartial a manner as possible.

Although the discretion with regard to editing of the news etc., in the very nature of things must rest with the relevant functionaries of the respondent-Corporations, yet (unless specifically directed by the Government to act in a particular manner, in exercise of its power under clause (f) of section 10

(1) or of subsection (2) of section 10 of the Pakistan Broadcasting Act (XXXII) of 1973, or of clause (3) of Article III of Memorandum of Association of the Pakistan Television Corporation), for the purpose of maintaining balance and impartiality it is directed that-

(a) equal time, as far as possible, should be given to the activities with regard to the election campaign to the two major participants is the elections, i.e , The Pakistan People's Party and the Pakistan National Alliance in their daily news bulletins ;

(b) permit the representatives of the Pakistan National Alliance to televise and broadcast the Manifesto of the said Alliance and address the Nation over their systems whenever the representatives of the Pakistan Peoples Party are permitted to do so, and

(c) (i) either refrain from expressing any views on the election issues through its commentators

(ii) or do so with respect to both the above-named participants, Also, while telecasting or broadcasting news about the various public meetings held by the contesting parties named above, either the live voice of an equal number of political leaders of each side addressing public meetings should be given or, in the alternative the voice of no one from either side should he broadcast live, unless, of course the Prime Minister of Pakistan addresses the Nation in his capacity as such, (in contradistinction to his capacity as the Chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party when he addresses public gatherings in connection with the election campaign of his party), on any important national issue, including the conduct of the forthcoming elections, or any other important matter concerning the country or the Nation at large. Parties to bear their own costs."

2. We now proceed to give the facts of the case and the reasons for our above-noted order.

The petitioner's main grievance is that the two respondents who have the sole monopoly of television and radio broadcasting and are the principal news media for the dissemination, inter alia of news etc. With regard to activities relating to the election campaign of the various contesting patties to the people of the country at large and are run and controlled by the Government of Pakistan, have not been acting impartially and fairly in projecting the news with regard to the election campaign of the P. N. A. And have been evidently discriminatory and biased in favour of the ruling party i.e. The Pakistan Peoples Party (hereinafter called the P. P. P.)

3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that each day a substantial part of the news bulletin is devoted to the activities of the P. P. P. Leaders in connection with their election campaign, while much less time is allocated to similar activities of the leaders of the P. N. A. A grievance was also made that while live voice of the Chairman of the P. P. P. Is broadcast on the television as well as the radio, only still pictures of the leaders of the P. N. A. Are shown on the television, but their voice is not broadcast and, instead, only the substance of their speeches is narrated by a commentator which, too, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not accurately reported. It was also alleged that while the manifesto of the P. P. P. Was broadcast on the Pakistan Television and Radio, the manifesto of the P. N. A. Was not similarly read out, and further, while the names of all the candidates of the P. P. P. Were broadcast, the names of the persons who were given tickets by the P. N. A. Were not so broadcast. It was also submitted that the activities of the P. N. A. In connection with its election campaign are not being projected properly to the people of Pakistan and that this display of bias and discrimination was doing incalculable harm to the cause of the Opposition. The petitionsr, therefore, prayed that

(a) directions be issued to the respondents to provide equal time to the spokesmen of the Pakistan Natitional Alliance as they are provi ling to the Pakistan People's Party both in ralation to the new business as well as the features:

(b) to televise and broadcast the lists of the candidates of the National Alliance who have been awarded tickets

(c) to permit a representative of the National Alliance to televise and broadcast the election manifesto and to address the Nation over their systems as frequently as the Peoples Party representatives do and,

(d) to refrain from expression of any views by its own commentators on either the conduct of the election or on the election issues, leaving it to the contesting parties to influence the doctorate by live broadcasts, in the same manner as the Chairman of the Peoples Party and other members of his Cabinet have been doing over the last few years in general and since the announcement of the elections in particular.

4. The case was, at first, put up before a Division Bench which recommended that since the case involved a matter of general public importance, it may be placed before a larger Bench. A Full Bench was accordingly, constituted which admitted the case for a full bearing on the 25th and issued a notice to the respondents for the 28th of February 1977. On that day (i.e. 28.2-1977) the learned Deputy Attorney-General appeared for the two respondents and filed a joint written statements on their behalf, alongwith affidavit's of certain officials of the two respondent Corporations, as well as 8 photostat copies of news items which had appeared in various local dailies.

' In the written statement, the learned Deputy Attorney-General took up a number of preliminary objections, out of which he pressed the following :

(1) That the petitioner not being an aggrieved person has no locus stand' to file the petition and also that he has no authority for the P. N. A. To file the petition.

(2) That the Election Commission has the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide such matters.

(3) That the petition is mala fide and has been filed for ulterior purposes.

1. As to the first preliminary objection taken up by him (namely, that the petitioner had no locus standi to file a writ petition) he submitted that since the petitioner is not a candidate, and has no personal interest or right in the subject-matter, he is not an "aggrieved" person and cannot, therefore, seek the remedy under Article 199 (1) (a) (1) merely on the basis of his being a 'citizen' or a 'tax payer'. He submitted further that to be an "aggrieved" person within the meaning of Article 199 (1) (a) of the Constitution, a person must have a legal right of enforcing the performance of a duty ; that he must show a direct personal interest in the performance of that duty as distinguished from a general interest which he shares with a large number of other members of the public. In support of this contention he relied on Zahoor Elahi v. Director Anti-Corruption Establishment and 2 others an Muhammad Yunus v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

' The learned Deputy Attorney-General also argued that the petitioner had not shown that he had been duly authorised by the P. N. A., for whom he is claiming the reliefs, to file a writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner controverted the above-noted preliminary objection and submitted that. Muhammad Aslam Salimi, petitioner is not only a citizen or tax payer, but is also an important office bearer (Assistant Secretary General) of a well-known political party (Jamaat- iIslami), which is, admittedly, a member of the P. N. A. And as such has a direct personal interest in the matter in which the two news me la, which are public services, are performing their functions and has a right to enforce the performance of their duties by them. He submitted that the two respondent-Corporations are bound, under their charters to act impartially and fairly and maintain a balance in the broadcast of news disseminated by them with regard to significant national activities. In this connection he submitted that the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation is a Statutory Corporation set up under section 3 of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act (XXXII), 1973 (hereinafter called the Act). He referred to section 10 (1) of the said Act which enumerates the functions of the Broadcasting Corporation.

' Learned counsel for the petitioner made a pointed reference to clause (e) of section 10 (1) of the Act which enjoins upon the Broadcasting Corporation1 2 "to bring to pablic awareness the whole range of significant activities and to present news or events in as factual, accurate and impartial a manner as possible."

' He also referred to clause (2) of Article III of the Memorandum of Association of the Pakistan Television Corporation which provides inter alia that the Pakistan Television Corporation should maintain 'balance' while telecasting its programmes. He submitted that the expression 'maintain balance' used in clause (2) referred to above must, in the context, be taken to have the same meaning and to have imposed the same duty on the Pakistan Television Corporation, as the provisions of clause (e) of section 10 (1) of the Pakistan Broadcasting Act of 1973 had placed on the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. He submitted further that the two authorities cited by the learned Deputy Attorney-General are distinguishable as they are based on different facts and the principle enunciated therein is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He also contended that the petitioner bad a right to file a writ petition, not only on behalf of his own party (i.e. Jamaat- iIslami) but also on behalf of P. N. A., of which his own party is an important member, In this connection he also referred to a photostat copy of an express telegram sent to the General Manager and the Station Director, respectively, of the two respondent-Corporations, jointly by Wazir Ali, an office holder of the Tehreek-i-Istiqlal and Mr. Muhammad Aslam Salimi, petitioner, who is an office holder of the Jamaat-i-Islami, protesting that they were not acting impartially and fairly. The counsel also submitted that it was evident from the address given underneath the telegram that it had been sent from the office of the P. N. A., which is situated at 33-Davis Road, Lahore. As such the petition must be deemed to have been filed with the consent of the P. N. A., who have not, so far disclaimed it.

7. We have carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, on the 1st preliminary objection i.e. That the petitioner is not an "aggrieved party" within the meaning of Article 199 (I) (a) of the Constitution.

It is correct that the said clause of Article 199 (1) requires that an application under the said Article must be by an aggrieved party, but we are of the view that the meaning of the expression 'aggrieved party' in Article 199 has to be construed in the context of and on the facts of each case.

' In the case of Ch. Zahoor Elahi the facts were that he (i.e. Ch. Zahoor Elahi) sent a report to the Director Anti-Corruption Establishment, containing allegations of corruption, nepotism and other criminal malpractices, against Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar who had held the offices of a Governor and Chief Minister of Punjab, and was still a member of the Provincial Assembly, requiring the said Director to register a case, conduct investigation and submit the challan in a Court of competent jurisdiction. It appears that the Director, Anti-Corruption and the Chief Secretary (respondents Nos.

1 and 2 respectively) did not take the required action. Ch. Zahoor Elahi, thereupon, filed a writ petition seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus against the Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore, requiting him to complete the investigation and submit his final report (under section 173, Cr. P. C.) to the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, on the charges levelled by him against Malik Ghulam Mustafa Khar (respondent No. 3). Prom the facts of that case as mentioned above, it is evident that the petitioner, in that case, had utterly failed to show that he had any direct interest in the performance of their duties by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in connection with the prosecution of Malik Ghulam Mustafa Khar, respondent No.

3. As such the learned Division Bench, which heard the case rightly held that he had no locus standi to file the petition in question.

' In the case of Muhammad Yunus v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the facts were that the Government decided to auction a certain property which had been declared to be enemy property and invited tenders for that purpose. Muhammad Yunus, petitioner, offered a bid of Rs. 15 lass, while the National & Grindlays Bank (Lloyds Branch), Lahore, respondent, gave a higher bid of Rs. 17 lacs.

The petitioner represented to the Secretary and the Custodian, Enemy Property Management3 4 Board, Government of Pakistan, that the respondent No. 4 being a foreign banking institution, was not eligible under the instructions issued in connection of the auction and requested that the offer or bid of the Bank should, therefore, be rejected. The Custodian Enemy Property, instead of taking action on the representation filed by the petitioner, returned, through a cheque, the money deposited by him as earnest money. The petitioner (Muhammad Yunus) filed a writ petition, praying that the disposal of the property in dispute in favour of the respondent-Bank be declared to be without lawful authority. On the question as to whether or not Muhammad Yunus had the locus stand! To challenge the impugned sale, it was argued on his behalf that he (i.e. The petitioner) was an aggrieved party because he was a citizen of Pakistan and was paying income- tax to the Government, it was held that he had no personal or "legal" right in the property in question merely because be had made a bid in the auction, because according to general principles of Law of Contract the submission of a tender or bid is merely an offer for the purchase of property, which may or may not be accepted. It is on these facts that the Court held that being a citizen or a taz-payer did not, by itself, confer a legal right on him to challenge the impugned order and as such he was not an aggrieved party.

8. It would be noticed that in Ch. Zahur Elahi's case mentioned above the petitioner had no direct personal interest in the matter and appeared merely to be acting as probono publico while in the second case the petitioner had no legal right to claim the property in question. It may, however, be mentioned that in another case involving the rejection of the petitioner's bid in an auction, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the highest bidder whose bid had not been accepted was an 'aggrieved party'. In this behalf reference may be made to Arsalla Khan v. Bashi, Ahmad Blour.

' Moreover, the scope and the nature of the matters in issue in the two cases cited by the learned Deputy Attorney-General was very limited. In Ch. Zahur Elahi's case the petitioner merely wanted his political adversary to be prosecuted and in the case of Muhammad Yunus, the question involved was merely as to whether his bid should be accepted in preference to that of the respondent Bank.

' In the present case, however, the activity involved I e. The campaign for the forthcoming general elections, has a much wider scope and encompasses almost the entire Nation. The election fever is high and the election campaign is at its pitch in every Province, region, town, village and hamlet of the country. Almost every adult in the country would be directly and vitally affected by the results of the election, which is first of its kind being held in the country by a civilian Government. The two major contenders for power are locked in combat with each other in an intense election campaign and a crucial struggle for influencing the people and winning-over the voters is in progress. A number of means are being adopted by both the sides e.g. Public meetings are being addressed by leaders of each side ; huge processions are taken out by them ; propaganda announcements are being made on loudspeakers carried on taxi-cabs ; slogans are being shouted, manifestoes are being advertised in the press ; posters are being pasted, banners and flags are being put up and pamphlets are being distributed. But due to the technological progress made during the last 30 years, radio and television have become the most formidable instruments of propaganda, which enable the candidates for political office to reach extremely large number of people in the shape of local or national audiences. These media have played an increasingly important part in the election process during the post-war era, not only in America and European countries but also in our own country, where the meetings of Field Marshal Muhammad Ayub Khan and Miss Fatima Jinnah with the electorate were broadcast on the radio in their entirety, in the 1964 elections, and similarly, the head of every important political party was given more or less equal time to address the Nation on the television, in the 1971 elections.

As already mentioned, the petitioner, is an office bearer of the Jamaat Islam which is one of the important members of P. N. A. The said Allis is seriously involved in the election struggle and it5 cannot be said that the petitioner has no direct personal interest in the manner in which the two media i.e. The respondent-Corporations are projecting the election campaign of all the contesting parties. If the respondent-Corporations are projecting the election campaign of the P. N. A. In a partial, one-sided or unfair manner, the interests of the petitioner, who wants to see his party or the Alliance to succeed, are definitely hit. The mere fact, that the interests of a large number of other citizens or political persons are also being hit in the same manner, or many other persons share the petitioner's grievance cannot, in the above-mentioned circumstances be made the basis for asserting that since he is not alone in having a keen interest in the matter but shares the same with thousands of other persons, he has no locus stand) to file a petition under Article 199.

' We also feel that there is no force in the contention that it is only 'candidate' contesting the election who can, in the circumstances mentioned above, pray for a direction in the nature of mandamus. If that was so, it could be argued that Mr. K. M. Gandhi who was not himself a candidate in the 1946 elections had no interest whatsoever in the success of the candidates put up by the Indian National Congress in the said elections or that Maulana Abual A'ala Maudoodi, who is not himself a candidate in the present elections, has no personal or direct interest in the fate of the P. N. A. Candidates in the present election.

9. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that in the peculiar circumstances mentioned above the petitioner in the present case is an "aggrieved" person within the meaning of clause (a) of Article 199(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan and, as such, has the locus standi to file the present petition.

10. We are not inclined to agree with the contention that the petitioner is not authorised to file the present writ petition because not only his own party is a member of the Alliance but, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a telegaram sent jointly by the petitioner and the Secretary of the Tehreek-i-Istiqlal from the office of the Affiance to the General Manager and the Managing Director of the two respondent-Corporations, respectively, shows that the petitioner's party and the Alliance had the common interest in the maintenance of balance and impartiality in the dissemination of news about its election campaign. Nor has the said Alliance disowned the writ petition till now, despite having knowledge about it through the press. This clearly shows that the petition was filed with the consent and concurrence of the Alliance and on its behalf.

11. With regard to the next preliminary objection, the learned Deputy Attorney-General argued that the Election Commission constituted under Article 218 of the Constitution has the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate upon matters relating to the conduct of election. In this connection he referred to Article 218(3) of the Constitution and clause (c) of section 103 of the Representation of the Peoples Act (LXXXV) of 1976. These provisions may be reproduced here for facility of reference:- ' Article 218(3) ; "It shall be the duty of the Election Commission constituted in relation to an election to organize and conduct the election and to make such arrangements as are necessary to ensure that the election is conducted honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with law, and that corrupt practices are guarded against."

' Section 103(c) of Act LXXXV of 1976 "Issue such instructions and exercise such powers, and make such consequential orders, as may, in its opinion, be necessary for ensuring that an election is conducted honestly, justly and fairly, and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules."

' The learned Deputy Attorney-General then argued that not only is it the exclusive function of the Election Commission to organize and conduct the elections but it is also the duty of all executive authorities in the country to assist the Commission and the Election Commission in the discharge of his or their functions and the relevant executive authorities are bound in law to carry out the directions given by the Commission for that purpose. In this connection he referred to Article 220 of the Constitution and section 104 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976. These, too, may be reproduced here for facility of reference:- ' Article 220 "It shall be the duty of all executive authorities in the Federation and in the Province to assist the Commissioner and the Election Commission in the discharge of his or their functions."

Section 104 of Representation of Peoples Act LXXXV of 1976. Direction of Commission in certain matters:- "Anything required to be done for carrying out the purpose of this Act for which no provision or no sufficient provision exists shall be done by such authority and in such manner as the Commission may direct."

' He also referred to section 5 of the above-noted Act, which reads as follows "Assistance to the Commission.-(1) All executive authorities in the Federation and in the Provinces shall render such assistance to the Commissioner and the Commission in the discharge of his or their functions as may be required of them by the Commissioner or the Commission.

(2) The Commissioner or the Commission may require any person or authority to perform such functions or render such assistance for the purpose of this Act as he or it may direct."

' From this he argued that if the petitioner had approached the Election Commission with the same prayers, the orders, if any, passed by the Commission by way of granting relief to the petitioner, would have been obeyed and carried out by the respondent-Corporations. (In other words the learned Deputy Attorney-General admitted, tacitly, that the two respondents come within the category of "Executive authorities".)

12. The learned Deputy Attorney-General then argued that in fact the prayer of the petitioner relates to the 'conduct of elections' and when an adequate alternate remedy is available to the petitioner, in the shape of an application to the Chief Election Commissioner, the present petition under Article 199(1)(a) of the Constitution is not maintainable.

13. We have carefully examined this contention and find that it has no force. The gravamen of this contention is that the petitioner's grievance relates to interference by the respondent-Corporations in the "conduct of elections", to ensure the fairness etc, which is exclusive duty of the Election Commission.

In order to consider the correctness or otherwise of this contention it is necessary to ascertain the meaning of the expression 'conduct of elections' as used in Article 218(3) of the Constitution and section 103(c) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976. Evidently, it has been used in the provisions in the same sense. The expression in question has not been defined in the Constitution, but its meaning can be gathered from the provisions of Chapter IV of the Representation of the Peoples Act (LXXXV) of 1976, the heading of which is "Conduct of elections". The above-noted Act consists of 10 chapters, headings whereof are as follows {{TABLE}} Chapter-1 Preliminary.

Chapten-41 Election, Chapter-III Appointment of Returning Officers, etc. Chapter-IV Conduct of elections. Chapter-V Election to seats reserved for women or certain communities. Chapter-VI Election expenses.

Chapter-VII Election disputes. Chapter-VIII Offence, penalty and procedure. Chapter-IX Disqualifications.

Chapter-X Miscellaneous. {{TABLE}} ' Chapter IV which deals with the subject of "Conduct of Elections", starts from the stage of issuance of Notification for election and goes on to lay down the procedure for filing of nomination papers by the candidates, deposits of security, scrutiny of nomination papers, withdrawal from election, declaring the election of candidates from uncontested seats, allocation of symbols to the candidates. Appointment of election agents and polling agents and also provides for actual polling i.e. Fixing of polling stations and polling hours; maintenance of order at the polling station and procedure of voting etc. And, finally, the declaration of the results. From this it is evident that the expression "conduct of elections" means every thing done from the stage of issuance of the Notification about the holding of elections, to the holding of actual polling's and ending with the declaration of the results.

Even if it be assumed that the whole of the Representation of the Peoples Act of 1976, deals with "conduct of election", then also (as would be seen from the heading of the various chapters given above and the sections thereof) it does not include any provisions relating to the carrying out of the 'Election campaign' of the various political parties, participating in the election and does not cast any duty or confer any power on the Commission to control the same. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the giving of any such direction, as prayed for by the petitioner in the a present petition, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Election Commission. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner had no adequate alternate remedy in the present case and is, therefore, justified to approach this Court through a petition under Article 199(1) of the Constitution.

14. It was next argued by the learned Deputy Attorney-General that the petition is mala fide inasmuch as it was intended to be a propaganda stunt. He pointed out that the reading of the petition would show that a large number of averments therein, are in fact, allegations and diatribes against the P. P. P. He also supported this contention by the fact that the petition was filed after a considerable delay and much after the respondent Corporations had started broadcasting or telecasting the news about the election campaign of the parties.

We are not impressed by this argument. No doubt the petition contains certain averments against the P. P. P. Which savour of 'allegations' against the ruling party but those were probably mentioned to make out a case for the grant of reliefs prayed for. In any case, the publication of the petition itself was not allowed by the Court so that it cannot be used as a means of propaganda by the petitioner's party, through the process of this Court. The delay in filing the application does not necessarily amount to mala fides on the part of the petitioner. He and his party (or the Alliance)/ probably waited to ear. If, protest made by its leaders in their public epee .h would have and Waft on the respondents

15. After dealing with the above-noted preliminary objections, the learned Deputy Attorney- General, went on to the merits of the case. He submitted that the two respondent-Corporations had acted very fairly throughout the period of the election campaign and, had to the best of their capacity, given equal treatment to both sides. He submitted that 'equality in time cannot be maintained with any exactitude while reporting the activities of the different parties because it is quite possible that on a particular day there is very little activity in the election campaign of one of the parties and on such a day, the two media shall have, perforce, to devote less time to the activities of that party. He submitted further that the equality has also been maintained with regard to the broadcast of live voice the political leaders on the television. He contended that, except the Prime Minister, the voice of no other political leader of either party has been broadcast live on either of the two media. He submitted that a distinction has to be made in the case of the Prime Minister of the country. He argued that although the has dual capacity, i.e. One as Chairman of the P. P. P. And the other as the Prime Minister of Pakistan, but he never loses the last mentioned capacity even though he might be campaigning for the election. He also controverted the facts asserted in the affidavits filed by the petitioner and one other namely, Mr. Nasrullah Ghalzai. The learned Deputy Attorney-General submitted the affidavits of certain responsible officers of the two respondent Corporations, including that of Mr. Zubair Ali, Director News and Current Affairs, Pakistan Television Corporation. Rawalpindi. He submitted that the facts mentioned in the affidavits filed on behalf of the writ petitioner were not correct or accurate. He also attempted to demonstrate from the affidavits filed by the officers of the respondent Corporations that more or less equal time had been devoted to the activities of different contesting parties and that it is not possible to maintain exact equality of time in such matters.

' He contended further that it is incorrect that the names of the candidates of the Opposition Party including the P. N. A. Were not broadcast on the two media. He submitted that the reason for giving the names of the P. P. P. Candidates earlier in time was due to the fact that the P. N. A. Had not yet finally decided as to whom it would give its tickets from the various seats. The moment that was finalised and a consolidated list was sent to the two respondents by the Election Commission, they broadcast the names of all its candidates. He submitted further that they had not broadcast the Manifesto of the P. N. A. Because the said Alliance had not cared to send them a copy of the same.

However, when the contents of the manifesto became known to them through the Press they had brought It to the notice of the public at large through vrious commentators. He submitted further that on the one hand, as shown by the photostat copies of the news paper cutting (copies whereof have been attached as Exhs. Rule 1 to Rule 8 with the Written Statement), the P. N. A. Leaders threatened to boycott the two media and to disallow their representatives from attending their meetings but on the other hand they complain that their cameramen or reporters do not cover their election activities. He contended further that the television sound equipment is very expensive and due to the threats of the opposition leaders it would be highly dangerous to carry such equipment in the public meetings of the said Alliance because no protection would be afforded to them, while, on the other hand, full protection is afforded to the equipment in the meetings where the Prime Minister is to address the public.

16. The learned Deputy Attorney-General did not however assert that the two respondent Corporations are not "persons performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, or a province or a local authority". As a matter of fact, as mentioned at the end of paragraph No. 11, he tacitly conceded that they or their officials are "Executive authorities". As such we are not required to adjudicate on the question whether a direction under Article 199(1) (a) of the Constitution can be issued to them.

' The Deputy Attorney-General did, however, contend that the directions prayed for by the petitioner cannot be issued to the respondents, because the functions of the said Corporation as mentioned in some of the clauses of section 10(1) of the Act are such as cannot be got enforced by any private person or individual, through a writ petition. It was pointed out to him that even this plea had not been taken up by him in his written statement. However on an oral request made by him, he was permitted to urge the last mentioned legal contention. In support of the said contention he referred to clause (a) of section 10(1) of the Act which lays down that one of the functions of the Broadcasting Corporations shall be :- "to provide broadcasting service for general reception in all parts of Pakistan ... And on board ships and aircrafts . . .And in other countries and places ' He submitted that no one can require the Government or the respondent Corporations, through a writ petition, to instal broadcasting systems at any particular place of his choice because any such direction by the Court would impinge upon the powers of the Government in that behalf. He also referred to clause (b) of section 10(1) of the Act which provides that the Broadcasting Corporation would broadcast:- "such programmes as may promote Islamic ideology, national unity and principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam, discourage parochial, racial, tribal, sectarian, linguistic and provincial prejudices and reflect the urges and aspirations of the people of Pakistan;"

' He submitted that no individual or private person can, lawfully, require the relevant functionary of the Corporation that he must broadcast any particular news on the radio, or show any pictorial scene on the television, the broadcasting or telecasting of which may, in the opinion of the relevant officials of the said Corporations would result in strife, commotion or violence amongst the people on racial, tribal. Sectarian or linguistic, basis or promote or enhance such prejudices, because to do so would be against the policy indicated in the said clause.

17. But it is pertinent to note that the learned Deputy Attorney-General did not assert either that functions mentioned in clause (e) of section 10(1) of the Act are incapable of being enforced or that acting upon the same would impinge on the powers of the Government (unless of course the Government has itself issued any instruction to the contrary under clause (f ) of section 10(1) or under subsection (2) of section 10. Nor did he argue that performance of functions in the manner indicated in clause (e), would, in any way, be against public interest or policy.

18. We have given our anxious thought to the matter and have carefully considered all the above noted contentions. We feel that the learned Deputy Attorney-General was justified in omitting to assert that the two Corporations are "persons performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a Local Authority", because respondent No. 2 is clearly a Statutory Corporation, which is fully controlled by the Government. Similarly, although respondent No. 1.,1 e , the Pakistan Television Corporation is incorporated as a Limited Company, under the Companies Act, 1913 yet the Government has the controlling shares in it from its very inception and it is fully controlled and run by it. In support of the fact that the two Corporations are controlled by the Government it may be mentioned that no Radio or T. V. Station can be installed without the prior permission of the Government as required by section 3 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, it is the Government which appoints the General Manager or the Managin Director, respectively, of these two Corporations and their salaries are paid from public exchequer. Moreover, the Government levies fees for issuin licences for keeping radio and television sets and also has the power to mak rules under section 10 of the above-mentioned Act of 1933. These rule have actually been made. The rules relating to television are known as the. Television Receiving Apparatus (Possession and Licensing) Rules, 1970. In these rules the Government has provided for levying of fees for issuance o licences for the possession of television sets on the payment of a specified, fee.

The contravention of the said provision (Rule No. 3) has been made punishable under rule 15 of these rules.

' Moreover in a Government Publication titled "The Budget, 1976-77". It is stated at pages 194 and 351 respectively, that a demand of Rs. 5,75,00, was made and sanctioned in favour of the Pakistan broadcasting Corpora tion and a demand of Rs. 63,83,000 was sanctioned for "Investment Pakistan Television Corporation for repatriation of foreign equity". Althoug the actual repatriation of the foreign capital has not yet been effected but th intention to do so is quite evident from the provision of the funds for tha purpose, in the annual budget. It is also noteworthy that clause (f), section 10(t) and subsection (2) of section 10 of the Pakistan Broadcasting. Corporations Act (XXXII of 1973) and Article III(3) of the Memorandu of Association of the Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd. Read with th Provisions of Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 show beyond doubt that both the Corporations are being controlled and run under the directions of the Government. In this connection it is also pertinent to refer to Article 15' of the Constitution. This Article, read with items Nos. 7 and 31 of the Federal Legislative List, provides that broadcasting and telecasting are Federal subjects. Article 253(1) of the Constitution provides that the Government can take over and run any such Corporations. TheL respondent-Corporations are clearly public services and, as shown above, they are being controlled and administered by the Government. As a result, we feel that the learned Deputy Attorney-General was justified in not pressing that the respondent. Corporations are not performing functions in connection with the affairs o the Federation, a Province or Local authority.

19. It may be mentioned here that for the same reasons as given in para. No. 18 above it is evident that the functions and objects of the two Corporations as mentioned in clause (e) of section 10(1) of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporations Act, 1973 and Article III(2) of the Memorandum of Association of the Pakistan Television Corporation arc, in fact, in the nature of duties, which they are required to perform as 'public services functioning under the control of the Government and are not merely now without any corresponding obligations. It is now well settled that when the function required to be performed or thing required to be done is 'public benefit' or 'advancement of public interest', the words used in the relevant law, rules or other similar provisions must be construed as having a compulsory force, i.e,, as importing a duty as opposed to merely conferring power of an enabling or permissive character. Reference in this connection' may be made to Julius v. Oxford and Reg v. Tithe Commissioners.

Having chosen to exercise the function of disseminating news about significant activity in the country, the respondent-Corporations are duty bound to maintain, as far as possible, a balance and present the news with regard to the aforementioned activity in an accurate and impartial a manner and the Court can, therefore, direct them to perform that duty in the said manner through a direction under Article 199(l) (a)(1) of the Constitution.

There appears to be legal precedent for the issuance of similar directions in cases where there was discrimination or unfair treatment in telecasting. In a book titled "Legal Control of Government" by Barnard Schwartz and H. W. R. Wade, Q. C , p. 207, it is mentioned at page 207 that "When a television station in Mississippi practised discriminatory programming treating race relations problems in a manner unfair to Negroes and the agency which regulates broadcasting refused to take action against the station, representatives of the listening public turned to the Federal Courts for a remedy. In both cases the Federal Courts granted relief, even though the refusals of the two administrative authorities, were clearly acts of policy."

Of the two cases referred to in that book, the one more relevant is Office of Communication v.

Federal Communication Commission (359 F. 2d 994 (D. C. Cir. 1966) ; 425 F. 2d 543 (D. C. Cir. 1969).

Some of the observations in the above-noted judgment with regard to "fair treatment" and "equality" are applicable to the case before us. This judgment is more elaborately discussed by my learned brother, Mr. Justice Nasim Hasan Shah in the separate note recorded by him, in this case.

Even if it were to be assumed that the Pakistan Television Corporation is a Private Limited Company, there is authority to the effect that when there is a duty requiring a certain act to be performed, a writ or direction L in the nature of mandamus can be issued to it. In this behalf reference may be made to Sh. Maqbool Dahl and others v. Khan Abdul Rehman Khan and others.

20. We now take up the next contention raised by the learned Deputy Attorney-General, namely that the functions mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of section 10(1) of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporations Act, 1973, are of such a nature as cannot be enforced through a Court of law.

' We are of the view that as far as the present case is concerned we are not required to deal with the functions and duties of the respondent-Corporations mentioned in clauses (at and (b) of section 10(1). We need not, therefore, discuss the Corporation's liability to perform those functions or duties. We are concerned only with those mentioned in clause (e) of section 10(1) of the Act. As already mentioned above (in paragraph 18), the learned Deputy Attorney-General did not contend that the functions mentioned in clause (e) are such as are not capable of being enforced. We feel that he was justified in not raising this contention, because the contention would not have been tenable. It cannot be denied that in the present era radio and television are the most effective medium of mass-communication. As such, we feel that the two Corporations having taken upon themselves to perform the functions of disseminating news etc. About the most significant activity6 7 8 in the country at present, it is obligatory for them to abide by, and, conform to the requirements prescribed in the clause (e), not only because it is fair or proper to do so but also because the two Corporations, which are 'Public Services', are required by their own Charter to maintain a balance while bringing the national activities to public awareness and to present news in relation thereto in an accurate and impartial and balanced manner.

21. We are, however, of the view that it is inherent in the very nature of the functions mentioned in clause (e) of section 10(1) of the said Act, that discretion of editing etc. Must lie with relevant functionary because it is be who must decide as to which of the news items, though factually correct may, if broadcast and brought to the notice of the public at large, result iv friction between certain communities or cause widespread turmoil, disturbance or even violence. As such, we feel that no private individual can insist that the relevant officials of the respondent-Corporations should edit the news etc., in any particular manner or in accordance with his wishes or dictates.

22. As mentioned above the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that equal time should be given to both sides regarding their activities in connection with the election campaign.

We are inclined to agree with the learned Deputy Attorney-General that it may not always be possible to maintain equality in time with any exactitude or precisions while broadcasting or telecasting the news etc. About the activities of different political parties, firstly, because it might not be practicable to do so and, secondly, as pointed out by the learned Deputy Attorney-General, on any particular day, the activities of one party might be far less than that of the other, thirdly because one of the many contending parties may be insignificant or much less important than the other parties, But we do feel that since the respondent-Corporations are required to be impartial and to maintain a balance, and since equality of time allotted to each side is one of the most important ingredients of impartiality, fairness and balance in connection with the dissemination of news about the election campaign of the two major contending parties, we feel that the respondent-Corporations should give equal time to the activities of each of these parties, in its news bulletins. Considering, however, that it is not always possible to maintain strict equality in time the same may be maintained only as far as it Is possible to do so, keeping in view all the relevant facts and circumstances on any particular day.

23. We agree with the learned Deputy Attorney-General that the leader of the P. P. P. Has two capacities, namely, Chairman of the said Party and the Prime Minister of the country. We, however, do not agree that he acts in both these capacities on all occasions. No doubt he remains the Prime Minister at all times but it cannot be said that he is necessarily acting as such on every occasion.

We are of the view that when he addresses the 0 public meeting being held in various cities of the country in connection with the election campaign of the P. P. P. And promoting the cause of the political party, of which he is the top leader, he is acting as the Chairman of the said Party because as Prime Minister be would speak for all the people of the country and not only for promoting the cause of one political party. There may, of course, be times, even during an election campaign, when a Primo Minister has to address the nation as a whole or the people of the country generally, in his capacity as Prime Minister regarding the matters relating to important national issues, including the conduct of the elections.

24. As to the contention that there is danger that in the expensive equipment of the Television if carried the meetings of the P. N. A. Because the people attending those meeting in a moment of unguided emotional outburst, may attack the personnel of the said Corporations or damage the expensive machinery carried by them, we feel that there may be some reasonable apprehension in the minds of the functionaries of the said Corporations due to the utterances of some of the important P. N. A. Leaders. On this score the learned counsel for the petitioner assured that the P. N.

A. Would gurantee their protection and is prepared even to insure the machinery. This is, however, a matter to be settled between the two parties to the petition.

25. As a result of the above discussion we feel that in the peculiar circumstances of this case. It is the duty of the respondent-Corporations to maintain a balance and present the news about the election campaign in as factual, accurate and impartial a manner as passible.

It is for the foregoing reasons that keeping in view the circumstances of this case as mentioned earlier, we accepted this petition by a short order in the terms mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of the Judgment:

(a) equal time as far as possible, should be given to the activities with regard to the election campaign to the two major participants in the elections, t. e , The Pakistan People's Party and the Pakistan National Alliance in their daily news bulletins ;

(b) permit the representatives of the Pakistan National Alliance, to televise and broadcast the manifesto of the said Alliance and address the Nation over their systems whenever the representatives of the Pakistan People's Party are permitted to do so ; and

(c) (i) either refrain from expressing any views on the election issues through its commentators ;

(ft) or do so with respect to both the above-named participants.

' Also, while telecasting or broadcasting news about the various public meetings held by the contesting parties named above, either the live voice of an equal number of political leaders of each side addressing public meetings should be given or, in the alternative the voice of no one from either side should be broadcast live, unless, of course the Prime Minister of Pakistan addresses the Nation in his capacity as such (in contradistinction to his capacity as the Chairman of the Pakistan People's Party when he addresses public gatherings in connection with the election campaign of his party), on any important national issue, including the conduct of the forthcoming elections, or any other important matter concerning the country or the nation at large.

26. Parties to bear their own costs.

' K. E. CHAUHAN, J.-I have gone through the judgment of my brother the learned Chief Justice. In view of the importance of the matters involved in this case, I would like to express my views separately also which should he considered in addition to or In amplification of the views of the learned Chief Justice and not in derogation thereof in any manner. My discussion deals with :

(a) Whether the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation is a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation (see para. 2, page 875).

(b) Re: Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd.-Whether a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation. (see para. 3, page 880).

(c) Re: Charters of the two Corporations briefly noticed (para. 4 page 883).

(4) Re: Maintainability of this writ petition (para. 5, p. 883).

(e) Rei Other adequate remedies ; whether available (para. 6, page 886).

(f) Re: Fair and balanced treatment by the two Corporations in General Elections (para. 7, page 887).

(g) Re: Equal time in General Election News (paras. 8 and 9, page 892-93).

(a) Re: Whether the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation is a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation.

2. Under Article 199(1) of the Constitution "subject to the Constitution a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law, (a) on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order (I) directing a person performing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do or to do anything he is required by law to do". The first question which requires consideration is as to whether the respondents in this case are "person" and secondly, if so whether they are performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province. The word "person" is defined in clause (5) of the aforesaid Article where it is written that "in this Article, unless the context otherwise requires, "person" includes any body politic or corporate, any authority of or under the control of the Federal Government or of Provincial Government, and any Court or tribunal, other than the Supreme Court, a High Court or a Court or Tribunal established under a law relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan". Taking up the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, it may be pointed out that it is a Corporation created under a statute known as Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act XXXII of 1973. Section 3 of that Act is headed as "Establishment of the Corporation" and states that "(1) as from the commencement of this Act, there shall be established a Corporation to be called the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. (2) The Corporation shall be a body corporate by the name of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to hold and dispose of property, and shall by the said name sue and be sued". So being a body corporate it can safely be held as a "person". The next question is as to whether it performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federatioa or the Province. Article 97 (1) of the Constitution, so far as relevant for our purpose, states that "subject to the Constitution, the executive authority of the Federation shall extend to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws, including exercise of rights, authority and jurisdiction in and in relation to areas outside Pakistan-".

This is to be read with Article 142 of the Constitution where it is written that subject to the Constitution (a) Parliament shall have exclusive power to make laws with respect to any matter in the Federal Legislative List ; (b) Parliament, and a Provincial Assembly also, shall have power to make laws with respect to any matter in the Concurrent Legislative List ; (c) a Provincial Assembly shall, and Parliament shall not, have power to make laws with respect to any matter not enumerated in either the Federal Legislative List or the Concurrent Legislative List ; and (d)

Parliament shall have exclusive power to make laws with respect to matters not enumerated in either of the Lists for such areas in the Federation as are not included in any Province". The other relevant provision which extends scope of Federal Legislatures is Article 144. The procedure for enactment of laws is contained in Articles 70 to 89 with which we are not concerned in this case.

' The lists containing items falling within the spheres of Federal and Provincial Legislature are contained in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution. Item No. 7 in Part I of the Federal list reads "posts and telegraphs, including telephones, wireless, broadcasting and other like forms of communcications I Post Office Saving Bank". Item No. 31 is "Corporations, that is to say, the incorporation, regulation and winding-up of trading Corporations, including banking, insurance and financial Corporations, but not including Corporations owned or controlled by a Province and carrying on business only within that Province, or cooperative societies, and of Corporations, whether trading or not, with objects not confined to a Province, but not including universities". Item No. 54 reads as "Fees in respect of any of the matters in this Part, but not including fees taken in any Court", and Item 59 is "matters incidental or ancillary to any matter enumerated in this Part". Item No. 3 of Part II reads as "Development of industries, where development under Federal control is declared by Federal law to be expedient in the public interest ; institutions establishments, bodies and Corporations administered or managed by the Federal Government immediately before the commencing day, including the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority and the Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, all undertakings, projects and schemes of such institutions, establishments, bodies and Corporations, industries, projects and undertakings owned wholly or partially by the Federation or by a Corporation set up by the Federation". Item No. 8 "matters incidental or ancillary to any matters enumerated in this Part". This will show that the executive authority of the Federation extends, so far as relevant for our case to the matters hereinbefore mentioned. In this light if we examine the Pakistan Broad casting Corporation Act we note that as per its section 4 the general direction and the administration of the affairs of the Corporation shall vest in a Board, to be constituted in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2). The Board is to consist of a Chairman and certain number of Directors to be appointed by the Federal Government, The qualifications and duties are enumerated in section 5 and they are to hold office during the pleasure of the Federal Government, which has also power as per section 6 to remove them. Section 7 deals with "meetings of the Board". Section 8 states that there shall be a Director-General of the Corporation who shall be appointed by the Federal Government on such salary and terms and conditions as the Federal Government may determine and shall be the chief executive of the Corporation and that he shall hold office during the pleasure of the Federal Government. Section 9 deals with 'delegation of powers' and section 10 deals with functions of the Corporation and reads as follows :- "Section 10.-(1) The functions of the Corporation shall be-

(a) to provide broadcasting services for general reception in all parts of Pakistan and the territorial waters thereof and on board ships and airerafts (such services being hereafter referred to as Home Services) and in other countries and places (such services being hereafter referred to as External Services) for the purposes of disseminating information, eduction and entertainment at through programmes which maintain a proper balance in their subject-matter and high general standard on quality and morality ; (b)to broadcast such programmes as may promote Islamic ideology, national unity and principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam, discourage parochial, racial tribal, sectarian, linguistic and provincial prejudices and reflect the urges and aspirations of the people of Pakistan ;

(c) to broadcast in the Home Services such special programmes as the Federal Government may, from time to time, direct ; (d)to broadcast programmes in the External Services to such countries and in such languages and at such times as the Federal Government may, from time to time, direct ;

(e) to bring to public awareness the whole range of significant activity and to present news or events in as factual, accurate and impartial a manner as possible ;

(f) to carry out instructions of the Federal Government with regard to general pattern or policies in respect of programmes, announcements and news to bo put out on the air from time to time (g)to hold the existing and to construct or acquire and establish or install additional stations and apparatus ; (h)to hold the existing, and to construct or acquire additional equipment and apparatus for telephony in Pakistan for purposes of broadcating;

(i) to compile, prepare, print, publish, issue, circulate and distribute, with or without charge, such papers, magazines, periodicals, book circulars and other such matter as may be conducive to any of the functions of the Corporation; and

(i) to collect news and information in any part of the world in any manner that may be deemed fit."

2-A. In the discharge of its functions the Corporation shall be guided on questions of policy by the instructions, if any, given to it from time to time by the Federal Government Which shall be the sole Judge as to whether a question is a question of policy". Section 11 pertains to the employment of officers and staff and section 12 pertains to the transfer of persons to and under the service of the Corporation. Section 13 lays down that the sources of income of the Corporation shall be (a) grants-in-aid made by the Federal Government for approved projects of the Corporation ; (b) moneys paid by the Federal Government for the expenditure incurred by the Corporation on the External Service and other services performed by the Corporation at the instance and on behalf of the Government ; (c) such annual subsidy as the Federal Government may grants (d) licence fee as the i-ederal Government may fix in respect of licences issued under section 4 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 (XVII of 1933), to possess wireless telegraphy apparatus ; (e) income derived from sale of programmes and broadcast time for advertisement ; and (f) income from other sources". Section 14 deals with the budget for capital and development expenditure and lays down that before the commencement of each financial year, the Corporation shall submit to the Federal Government for its approval a budget for the capital and development expenditure proposed to be incurred by the Corporation during the financial year and shall not incur any expenditure of the nature of capital and development expenditure which is not provided for in the budget as approved by the Federal Government". Section 15 gives a borrowing power to the Corporation with the previous approval of the Federal Government. Section 16 deals with the audit and accounts of the Corporation. Section 17 exempts the Corporation from certain taxes. Section 18 requires the Federation to submit to the Federal Government at such time, after the end of every financial year in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by rules, a report on the conduct of its affairs for that year and requires the Federal Government to lay the aforesaid report before the National Assembly. Section 19 transfers the assets and liabilities of Radio Pakistan to the Corporation. Section 20 deals with the liquidation of the Coroporation and states that no provision of law relating to the winding up of the companies shall apply to the Corporation and the Corporation shall not be wound up save by an order of the Federal Government and in such manner as the Federal Government may direct. Section 21 authorises the Federal Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act and section 22, similarly, authorises the Board, with the previous sanction of the Government, to make regualtions to provide for all matters not required to be provided for by rules and for which provision is necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act Article 159 of the Constitution itself in various respects mentioned therein bestows certain powers on the Federal Government in the matter of broadcasting and telecasting and is in a way an indication of the tact that broadcasting and telecasting is rather under the sole control of that Government, The detailed study made above leave no room for doubt that the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation is a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, It is under the active control of the Federal Government. Its Director are appointed by the Federal Government. It is recipient of grants and moneys from the Federal Goverment and has power to realise licence fees etc. Its budget is approved by the Federal Government. The functions of this Corporation are such which actually are affairs and functions of the Federal Government and are being performed by the Corporation. They are co-related to various affairs of the State indicated inter alia in numerous items of the Federal List mentioned above. If the functions performed by the Corporation are studied with reference to various items of the Federal List no room is left for doubt that the Corporation is a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation and in certain cases of the Province. Reference at this place may be made to The Chairman, East Pakistan Industrial Develorment Corporation, Dacca and others v. Rustam All and another which was a case of a Corporate person known as the East Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (E. P. I. D. C.) created under Ordinance XXXVII of 1962 and in which it was held that E P. L D. C. Was a person within the meaning of clause (2) of Article 98 of 1962 Constitution which corresponds to Article 199 (1) (a)(1) and (a) (ii) of the present Constitution. In clause (2) of Article 98 the person referred to was a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Centre. The Supreme Court for the proposition aforesaid referred to its previous decision in The University of Dacca through its Vice-Chancellor and another v. Zakir Ahmed where at pages 96-97 the matter had been discussed in detail and the writ issued by the Dacca High Court declaring expulsion of a student from the university as to be without lawful authority, was maintained. In The Deputy Managing Director, National Bank of Pakistan etc. V. Ataul Haq the National Bank of Pakistan was held to be a body corporate and at page 206 it was observed that the further facts that the Ordinance gives power to the Central Government to appoint the Managing Director and a number of Directors to appoint the Auditors, as well as the President of the Central Board, are simply sufficient to show that the National Bank of Pakistan is a body entrusted with the condect of certain affairs appertaining to the Centre. In Syed Akbar All9 10 11 Bokhari v. State Bank of Pakistan and 7 others State Bank of Pakistan on various considerations mentioned therein was held to be a 'person' perferming functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation so as to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199. In Salahuddin and 2 others v. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd, Takht Bhal and 10 others it was observed "now' what is meant by the phrase "performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province". It is clear that the reference is to governmental or State functions, involving, in one form or another, an element of exercise of public power. The functions may be the traditional police functions of the State, involving the maintenance of law and order and other regulatory activities ; or they may comprise functions petaining to economic development, social welfare, education, public utility services and other State enterprises of an Industrial or commercial nature. Ordinarily, these functions would be performed by persons or agencies directly appointed, controlled and financed by tee State i. e. By the Federal Government or a Provincial Government. However, in recent years, there has been manifest a growing tendency on the part of Governments to create statutory Corporations for undertakiog many such functions, particularly in the industrial and commercial spheres, in the belief that free from the inhibiting effect of red-tapism, these semi- autonomous bodies may prove more effective, flexible and also profitable. Inevitably, Government retains effective control over their functioning by appointing the heads and other senior officers of these Corporations, by regulating their composition and procedures by appropriate statutes, and by the providing funds for financing their activities.

' Examples of such statutory Corporations are the National Bank of Pakistan, Water and Power Development Authority, the National Shipping Corporation, the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and the large number of universities functioning under their respective statutes. On account of their common attributes, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph they have all been regarded as persons performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province. (See Deputy Managing Director, National Bank of Pakistan v. At Abdul Haq, Wall Muhammad V. General Manager, WAPDA, Lahore, Chairman, East Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v. Rustam Ali Muhammad Ashraf Pervaiz v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Abdur Razaq v. WAPDA and R. T. H. Janjua v. National Shipping Corporation Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts and circumstances of the present case, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation definitely falls within the ambit of a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation.

(b) Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd. Whether a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation.

3. Taking up the Pakistan Television Corporation it is a company registered under the Companies Act VII of 1913. According to section 23(2) of the Companies Act the subscribes/membeis of a company, from the date of its incorporation, shall be a body corporate by the name contained in its Memorandum, capable forthwith of exercising all the functions of an incorporated company and having a perpetual succession and a common seal. The said Corporation is, therefore, clearly a 'person'. As to the point whether it performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province, I shall here refer to Telegraph Act XIII of 1885. Section 3(1) defines 'telegraph" so as to man an electric, galvanic or magnetic telegraph and includes appliances and apparatus for making transmitting or receiving telegraphic, telephonic or other communications by means of electricity, galvanism or magnetism". This definition, it is obvious, is wide enough to cover transmissions and receptions of visual images by televisions. As laid down in Re : Regulation and Control of Radio Communications Act, Canada it is equally capable of covering even Radio broadcasting. To the same strain is a case under Australian jurisdiction titled King v Brislan.

Section 4 of this Act is very relevant for our purpose. It occurs in Part II of the Act, which is headed as "Privileges and powers or the Government". Marginal heading of this section is "Exclusive privilege in12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 respect of telegraphs, and power to grant licences". The whole section is worth reproduction. It reads as follows "4.-(1) Within Pakistan, the Central Government shall have the exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs: Provided that the Central Government may grant a licence, on such conditions and in consideration of such payments as it thinks fit, to any person to establish, maintain or work a telegraph within any part of Pakistan: Provided further that the Central Government may, by rules made under this Act and published in the official Gazette permit, subject to such restrictions and conditions as it thinks fit, the establishment, maintenance and working-(a) of Wireless telegraphs on ships within Pakistan territorial waters and on aircraft within or above Pakistan or Pakistan territorial waters, and (b) of telegraphs other than Wireless Telegraphs within any part of Pakistan.

(2) The Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette delegate to the telegraph authority all or any of its powers under the first proviso to subsection (1).

' The exercise by the telegraph authority of any power so delegated shall be subject to such restrictions and conditions as the Central Government may by the notification, think fit to impose "

' The term 'telegraph authority' is defined in section 2 (6) and means the Director-General, Pakistan Telegraph and Telephones Department and includes any officer empowered by him to perform all or any of the functions of the telegraph authority under this Act." Section 5 deals with power for Government to take possession of licensed telegraphs and to order interception of messages. It reads as follows:- "5-,(1) On the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety the Central Government or a Provincial Government or any officer specially authorized in this behalf by the Central or a Provincial Government may (a) take temporary possession of any telegraph established, maintained or worked by any person licensed under this Act ; or (b) order that any message or class of messages to or from any person or class of persons or relating to any particular subject brought for transmission by or transmitted or received by any telegraph shall not be transmitted or shall be intercepted or detained or shall he disclosed to the Government making the order or an officer thereof mentioned in the order.

(2) If any doubt arises as to the existence of a public emergency, or whether any act done under subsection (1) was in the interest of the public safety a certificate of the Central or as the case may be the Provincial Government shall be conclusive proof on the point."

' Section 6 empowers the Central Government to establish telegraph on land of a railway company. Section 7 authorises Central Government to make rules consistent with this Act for the conduct of all or any telegraphs established, maintained or worked by the Government or by persons licensed under this Act. Section 7-A deals with the recovery of dues in respect of telegraph etc. Section S pertains to revocation of licences. Chapter III of this Act which consists of sections 10 to 19-B deals with powers to place telegraph iines and posts. The provisions of this Chapter may be read with the Wireless Telegraphy Act XVII of 1933. Section 2 of this Act defines wireless communication so as to mean the making, transmitting or receiving of telegraphic, telephonic or other cumnumcation by means of electricity or magnetism without the use of wires or other continuous electrical conductors between the transmitting and the receiving apparatus. Section 2

(2) defines "wireless telegraphy apparatus as any apparatus, appliance, instrument or material used or capable of use in wireless communication and includes any article determined by rule made under section 10 to be wireless telegraphy apparatus, but does not include any such apparatus, appliance, instrument or material commonly used for other electrical purposes, unless it has been special designed or adapted for wireless communication or forms part of some apparatus, appliance, instrument or material specially so designed or adapted, nor any Article determined by rule made under section 10 not to be Wireless Telegraphy apparatus". Section 3 states that save as provided by section 4 no person shall possess Wireless Telegraphy apparatus except under and in accordance with a licence issued under this Act. Section 5 states that the Director-General, Pakistan Post Office or an officer authorised by him in this behalf shall be the authority competent to issue licences to possess Wireless Telegraphy apparatus under this Act, and may issue licences in such manner, on such conditions and subject to such payments as may be prescribed. Provided that where, by an agreement with the Pakistan Television Corporation Limited, the Central Government appoints the Corporation to be its agent in the matter of issuing licences to possess television receiving apparatus, the authority competent to issue licences to possess such apparatus shall be the Chairman of that Corporation or a person authorised by him in this benalf, who may issue licences in such manner, on such conditions and subject to such payments as may be prescribed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 4 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 (XIII of 1885) no licence under that Act shall be necessary for the possession of a television receiving apparatus for possessing which a licence issued under this Act is for the time being in force". Section 10 bestows power on the Central Government 0 make rules. The Central Government under the aforesaid provisions has made rules which are known as The Television Receiving apparatus (Possession and Licensing) Rules, 1970 (published in the Gazette of Pakistan No. 43, dated Friday, the 23rd October 1970) (as amended later), which impose fees for obtaining television licences etc. And give power t functionaries mentioned therein to make searches and exercise consequent public powers and in case of disobedience of rules to secure punishment of violators under the law. All this will make clear that establishment, maintenance, use and working of television network (which according to me is included in the words telegraph' and 'Wireless communication') is the sovereign and exclusive privilege, power and function of the Federal Government t e. The State and the Pakistan Television Corporation is only an agent of the State or conversely the Federal Government being its major shareholder is itself performing these functions in the form of getting itself incorporated along with other shareholders in the form of a Corporation.

In other words, the functions entrusted to or performed by the Pakistan Television Corporation, are function of State involving exercise of same sorvereign and public power. That the Corporation is an agent of the Federal Government is further clear from the Memorandum/Articles of Association of the Corporation itself which undertake the control of the Federal Government and an obligation to follow their instructions. The Television Corporation when it performs the aforesaid functions, actually performs them in connection with the affairs of the Federal Government or as its agent, licensee, or a delegatee, because, the grant of a licence will not take away the sole privilege and power of that Government as indicated in section 4 of the Telegraph Act whereby broadcasting and telecasting is the sole and monopoly function of the Federal Government. The mere fact that Pakistan Television Corporation is a limited company registered under the Companies Act, therefore, does not detract anything from the nature of its status vis-a-vis its functions. Even otherwise as is clear from the Pakistan Budget 1976-71 its funds are sanctioned through the Pakistan Budget by the Parliament. Its shares/equiles have almost taken over or agreed to be taken over by the Federal Government which holds bulk of its shares and from that point of view also it is under the control of the Federal Government. With regard to such Corporations it was held in Salauddin and 2 others v. Frontier and Sugar Mills Distillery Ltd, Takht Bhal and 10 others that "the primary test must always be whether the functions entrusted to it are indeed the functions of the State involving some exercise of sovereign or public power ; whether the control of the organization vests in a substantial manner in the hands of the Government and whether the bulk of the funds is provided by the Government and if these conditions are fulfilled then the person including body politic and body corporate may indeed be regarded as a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of Federation or Province otherwise not". Reference for analogy may be made to 'Corpus Juris', Volume LXVI (19)3 Edition), page 15 where, while dealing with "telegraph and21 telephone associations companies or Corp orations" it is written that "telegraph and telephone companies are public service Corporations, or quasi-public Corporations or servants engaged in a quasi-public business, in many respects similar to that of common carriers and their instruments and apparatus are therefore, devoted to a public use. Such companies receive from the public various valuable rights and franchise, such as the right of eminent domain and are subject to certain well-defined duties and obligations to the public, such as to serve the public generally and without discrimination, and to conduct their business in a manner conducive to the public benefit.

Owing to their quasi-public character such companies are subject to legislative regulation and control. While the franchise for conducting such a business may be exercised by an individual as well as by a Corporation, the fact that it is so exercised does tot affect the public character of the business, or the obligation owing to the public or its liability to legislative regulation and control". At page 20 it is written that "the right to carry on a public telegraph or telephone business with the rights and privileges usually incident thereto is ordinarily termed a franchise. Such franchise is incorporeal property, which is exercised by, and pursuant to, legislative authority. The right to exercise the franchise may be inquired into by quo warranto, and it may be forfeited in me it was illegally or improperly granted or for non-user or misuser". At page 16, under the heading "As Public Utilities", it is then written that "telegraph and telephone companies are usually classed as public utilities". At page 86, under the heading "Remedies", it is written that "the general public duty of a telegraph or telephone company or the like, to serve all applicants impartially and without discrimination may ordinarily be enforced by mandamus to compel the furnishing or continuance of service or facilities, or by injunction to restrain a refusal to serve or a discontinuance or the service, or by mandatory injunction". The present Corporation squarely fulfils the aforesaid requirements and, looked at from whatever angle, it is manifestly a public utility Corporation or to be exact a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation within the meaning of this concept and amenable to writ jurisdiction as contemplated in Article 199 of the Constitution.

(c) Ret Charters of the two Corporations briefly noticed

4. The next point to be taken note of is that it is written in the Charter of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation as contained in section 10 (1) (e) of the Pakistan Broadcasting Act that it is to bring to public awareness the whole range of significant activity and to present news or events in as factual, accurate and impartial a manner as pssible. Similarly it is written in the Charter of the Pakistan Television Corporation as contained in Article III (2) of its Memorandum of Association Cott it is to ensure that programmes telecast by the Company from its each Television Station maintain a high general standard in all respects and in particular in respect of their content, quality,halance and wide range of the subject-matters, having regard to programmes as a whole.

(d) Re: Maintainability of this writ petition

5. After having noticed the above constitution, features, characteristics, charter duties and obligations of this two Corporations we now have to find as to whether the petitioner is a person aggrieved so as to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for the enfsrcement of the aforesaid obligations and duties of the said Corporations with regard to the matters involved in this case. Before proceeding further I would at this stage like to refer to the Political Parties Act, III of 1962. The statement of objects and reasons for this law is contained on page 115 (ag)of Gazette of Pakistan (Extraodinary), dated 30-6-1962 where it is written that "there is a ban on the setting up of political parties in the Political Organisation (Prohibition of Unregulated Activity) Ordinance, 1962 (XVIII of 1962) unless permission of the Central Legislature exists for this puspose. There is also prohibition in Article 173 of the Constitution against a person holding himself out as a member of a political party or seeking support from such political parties at the time of election, unless the Central Legislature permits him to do so. It has been decided to remove these bans by granting permission through an Act of the Central Legislature, to people to form political parties and to seek election with the support of political parties. But political parties with foreign affiliations and political parties the activities of which are prejudicial to the security and integrity of Pakistan will continue to remain under the ban. Certain classes of persons have also been prohibited from joining political parties. This Bid, if passed into law, will allow political parties to function with the restrictions imposed by clause 3, and thereafter the prohibition contained in Article 173 of constitution and in the aforesaid Ordinance will disappear". The preamble of this Act states that it was being enacted as "it is expedient to provide for the formation of political parties and to permit persons to hold themselves out at elections as members of political parties". Section 2 (c) of the Act defines a "political party and (as amended) states that "In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, political party includes a group or combination of persons who are operating for the purpose of propagating any political opinion or indulging in any other political activity". Section 4 of this Act is headed as 'lawful political activities" and states that subject to the provisions of section 3, it shall be lawful (1) for anybody of individuals or association of persons to form, organise or set up a political party ; (2) for any person, not being in the service of Pakistan (a) to be a member or office-bearer of, or be otherwise associated with a political party ;or (lei for the purposes of an election to be held under Vie Constitution, to hold himself out or any other person, not being a person in the service of Pakistan, as a member or to have the support, of a political patty, the formation, organisation or setting up of which is not prohibited by this Act". It is not disputed before us that Jamaat-e-Islami is a political party functioning under the said Act. The petitioner, as averred by him in his petition, is an office-bearer of that party being its Assistant Secretary General (at the national level and is otherwise associated with it). He is therefore, under clause 2 (b) of section 4 eligible for the purpose of the recent elections to hold out any other person as a member or having support of his political party or as a matter of fact that of any political party functioning, organisation and setting up of which is not prohibited by this Act. He has averred in the petition that his party has set up its own candidates and for purposes of elections is also a constituent or collaborator of another political party viz. P. N. A. Which has been recognised as such by the Election Commission also under rule 9 (2) of the Representation of the People (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977 framed under section 107 of the Representation of the People Act LXXXV of 1976. If, therefore, it is his statutory right to propagate the characteristics of his party or various candidates correspondingly he can under the Charters of the two Corporations insist on them to obey said Charters, perform their functions impartially and wit balance while broadcasting and telecasting their features, programmes and news etc. About elections specially when, as I have u already held, these two Corporations are performing their functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation I e. The State whose duty (i. e. The States duty) it is, as enshrined in Article 3 of the Constitution to ensure the elimination of all forms of exploitation" and if utilisation of broadca3t or telecast purports to its exploitation solely in favour of one political party to the total or material exclusion of their parties, the petitioner as an office-bearer of a political party which in its own turn is a collabcrator and constituent of a bigger Alliance (P. N. A.) can competently invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this Article to redress the relevant grievances. This may be read with Artitle 5 (2) of the Constitution which states that "obedience to the Constitution and law is the basic obligation of every citizen wherever he may be and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan". It is to be noticed that the petitioner by means of this petition is requiring the two Corporations to obey the Constitution and the law as highlighted above He cannot be termed as an utter stranger. He is an office-bearer at the national level of a political party which has the liberty to propagate its political opinion or indulge in the present day political activity of elections and to give support to the candidates concerned. He has, as such, right and interest enough to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court with regard to the matters involved herein, The petitioner has averred that he and Wazir All of the Pakistan National Alliance made a joint demand as well cn the two Corporations to relieve the relevant grievances, but without any success and hence this petition. Reading the petition as a whole I have no hesitation in holding that the petition is well-founded, from the point of view of the status of the petitioner which can be traced to both the political parties viz Jamaat-e-Islarni and the P. N, A. (of which as mentioned above Jamaate- Islami is a constituent and hyper-technical objections in this respect as raised by the learned Deputy Attorney-General cane of detract anything from the locus standi of the petitioner for filing this petition. In his capacity as an office-bearer of Jamaat-e-Islami, the petition can well be taken for and on behalf of that Jamaat-e-lslami as also its other constituent viz., P. N. A. The status of such an office-bearer, as the petitioner is, stands statutorily recognised as of importance within the terms of the "explanation" attached to section 8 of Act III of 1962 which placed him under severe legal disabilities and disquaiifiaations when the party to which such an office-bearer belongs is compulsorily dissolved or banned. The learned Deputy Attorney-General tried to argue that there was no demand ever made on the two Corporations and nor had they even refused to accede to the same. However, when his attention was drawn to Annex. 'A' (the formal telegraphic notice of demand by the office-bearers of Jamaate-Islami and the P. N. A.) and his own Annexures in the froms of 'R1' to 'R8' which indicated the demands having been made even in the form of nubile protests and processions etc_ which were taken right up to the office of the two Corporations, he bad no answer. The annexure filed by him rather showed the justification for the institution of this petition far from negating it.

' A half-hearted argument was raised by the learned Deputy Attorney-General to the effect that there was a difference between functions and powers on the one hand and duties of a Corporation on the other hand. He submitted that for the purpose of issuing a writ of mandamus it is the later aspect which is to be attended to and not the first, and that no writ could be issued to compel a Corporation to perform any particular function from among the variety of functions it is capable of performing in general. This argument he was raising with reference to various functions of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation as spread in section 10 of Act XXXII of 1973 reproduced above and the Memorandum/Articles of Association of the Pakistan Television Corporation and other material relevant in that context. He submitted that as all these functions were of a general nature, therefore, they were not capable of being enforced through a writ petition. The plea raised on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case has no merit and can be shortly disposed of with the observation that our Constitution has scheme of its own and while attending to such like matters we should confine to the provisions of that and that Constitution alone and should not unnecessarily introduce hyper-technical issues of this nature to make matters unnecessarily involved. To excuse repetition Article 199 (1)(a) of the Constitution says that a High Court may make an order "directin a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation . .

To refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to do." The language of the Article is quite clear. It requires us to see whether the person concerned is performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a province. If he is performing such functions then a High Court can direct him to do anything he is required by law to do or to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do. Now it has been demonstrated above in detail that the two Corporations/persons are performing functions under examination in this case in connection with the affairs of the Federation. If that is so then for the reasons contained in the present judgment we have simply asked those persons to perform those functions V in accordance with law on the subject as elaborated herein. The functions of staging election programmes, election features, and disseminating news in general elections or election matters has been undertaken by the two Corporations of their own and it is not we who have asked them to undertake them. We have simply directed them to perform those functions in accordance with law on the subject pointing out objectionable excesses in their acts of omission and commission in that respect strictly within the scope of Article 199. There is thus no defect in the maintainability of this writ petition on the plea advanced. Even otherwise the subject of functions, powers and duties, in abstract is so mixed up and involved that there also no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to which is a function and which is a power and which is a duty. The discussion of that academic subject can be postponed to some more appropriate case in future and nor is there any necessity to attend to each function, power and duty, sentence by sentence or word by word in the relevant laws and the attending material of this case as noted above. The present case falls within a narrow compass as highlighted in this judgment and we should not go out of the same or unnecessarily involve it. As to in what respects public utility Corporations can be surd has already been dealt with by me in latter part of paragraph 3 of this judgment ibid under the caption 'remedies' with reference to extracts from Corpus Juris quoted therein and need not be repeated here again.

(e) Re : Other adequate remedies : Whether available

6. The learned Deputy Attorney-General then argued that the petitioner had other adequate remedies in the form of approaching the Parliament and not this Court. Needless to state that Parliament has no jurisdiction to issue writs and orders of the kind contemplated in Article 199 of the Constitution. The Parliament is concerned with making of laws, the executive and its functionaries are concerned with the implementation of those laws and the High Court in appropriate cases can ask them to do what is their duty to do or refrain from doing that which they are not competent to do It is the latter jurisdiction which the petitioner in this case is invoking. The Legislature has already made laws on the subject, details whereof have been mentioned above and the petitioner simply seeks their compliance. The suggestion to direct the petitioner to approach the Parliament in this context, with due respect, is not apt. It was then submitted by the learned Deputy Attorney-General that the matters involved in the writ petition pertained to the "conduct of elections" for regulation whereof the petitioner would have been well advised to approach the Election Commission whose duty it was under Article 218 (3) of the Constitution "to organize and conduct the election and to make such arrangements as are necessary to ensure that the election is conducted honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with law, and that corrupt practices are guarded against." The contention has no merit and has been repelled by the learned Chief Justice in his judgment. However, without conceding, if the argument of the learned Deputy Attorney-General is correct and has to be taken at its face value, then it would mean that the Federal Government in the garb of an incorporated company is interfering or taking active part in the "conduct of elections." The argument, with due respect, has the propensity of involving the two Corporations instead of keeping them out of the elections, or "conduct of elections".

(f) Re Fair and balanced treatment by the two Corporations in Elections

7. Coming to the merits of the case, it is a common ground (a) that the respondents are broadcasing and telecasting the live voices and the live pictures of the P. P. P. Chairman and candidates whereas the same is not being done for the P. N. A. Head and candidates and (b) that the respondents are broadcasting and telecasting features and projecting comments and live views of the commentators in favour of the P. P. P. But no such features or comments are being broadcast or telecast from or for persons supporting P. N. A. This is clearly partial and discriminatory public utility service and to undo this illegality we issued the necessary directions in our short order dated 2-3-1977. At this place it may be mentioned that there are two ways of providing for elections. (This categorizatio should not be considered as exhaustive and is being adopted for the purpose of understanding the point hereinafter following). One is to allow establishment of political parties with right to put up its candidates and freedom of campaigning in their favour. This is independent of the right of the candidates themselves to carry on their individual campaig . The other is to ban the existence or establishment of any political party in the country and let the candidates fight their elections individually without any party support or without any party ticket or affiliation or basis. The late Constitution of 1962 by its Article 173 adopted the latter method. The said Article was headed as 'Restriction on canvassing for votes ; meetings between candidates and constituents" and read as follows :- "173. Except as permitted by Act of the Central Legislature, any person who, in connection with an election required to be held, under this Constitution, holds out himself or any other person as being a member of, or as having the support of, a political party or any similar organisation shall be punishable in such manner as may be prescribed by Act of the Central Legislature, but provision shall be made by law lot ensuring - (a)that each candidate at an election has the opportunity and so far as is practicable, equal opportunity with other candidates, for addressing the persons who are entitled to vote at the election; and (b)that the persons entitled to vote at the election have the opportunity of questioning each candidate, face to face."

' In pursuance of the aforesaid Article, there was promulgated, on 16-7-1962, the political Parties Act III of 1962, provisions whereof have been noted above In extenso. It was through that Act that the prohibition to hold himself, or another person, as being a member of, or as having the support of a political party, or any similar organisation was virtually removed. The Constitutional command of clauses (a) and (b) of the aforesaid Article were then complied with by making the necessary previsions in sections 46 and 47 of the National and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Act VII of 1964 and sections 40 and 41 of the Presidential Elections Act VIII of 1964. These two Acts provided, what may be called, audience or right of addressing the concerned audience. I am referring to these provisions and enactments simply to highlight the point that the right to reach large local and national audience and to carry on election campaign and canvassing is a valuable right in connection v ith the elections which vests both in the political parties, which issue tickets, and also in candidates who obtain those tickets. This party system and affiliation is recognised in the present 1973 Constitution also as per Article 17 which may be read with the statement of objects and reasons of the Political Parties Act reproduced earlier which authorises the persons to seek election with the support of political parties. It was in the exercise of the rights conferred by the aforesaid provisions that both the major political parties, namely, the P. P. P. And the P. N. A. Have been organising largo scale campaign, canvassing and propaganda side-by-side with the individual canvassing, campaign and propaganda of the candidates themselves in the recent elections. Another distinctive feature of this aspect of political activities is that whereas under sections 48 to 50 and section 78(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 a candidate cannot incur more than the amount stipulated for "election expenses." a politest party probably, while projecting its candidates, is under no such restriction. Whether this is really permissible (on the principle that what cannot be done directly should not be allowed to be done Indirectly)-is a question to be attended to at some appropriate stage, but I am mentioning this point simply to elaborate the difference between the two systems of permitting elections, namely, on the political- parties basis or without the sanction for establishing political parties. But once the right to establish political parties is concede it shall have further to be conceded that political parties will have the ancillary and consequential right to reach and address the audience, prop& gate its political opinion and to indulge or take part in the relevant political activity through all public means including what may be called "electronic campaigning" which covers radio and television broadcasting. The view which I have taken has a support also from Saiyyad Abul A'la Maudoodi etc. v. The Government of West Pakistan etc. where at page 692 it was observed by Cornelius, Chief Justice that "a political party, particularly one with a large organisational network has a collective22 personality and possesses constiutional importance from the presence which it enjoys and the image which it creates, through operating among the entire population, and making its existence felt at all levels of political activity, particularly in the sphere of administration. Political parties were entitled under the Act of 1962 to operate in their proper names, in relation to all elections to be held under the Constitution i.e. Elections to the Provincial Assemblies and to National Assembly." Again at the same page it was further observed that "the ordinary conception of a political party includes a right within the framework of the Constitution to exert itself through its following and organization, and using all available channels of mass-communication, to propagate its views in relation to the whole complex of the administrative machine, including the Legislatures, in respect cf matters which appear to it to require attention for the amelioration of conditions generally throughout the nation, for improvements particularly in administrative procedures and policies, as well as in the legislative field, even to the extent of proposing and pressing for amendment of the Constitution itself. The National Assembly being fully aware of the massive and all-prevading influence of political parties organized on national scale, the grant of the franchise by the Act, following a period when political parties were under a total ban, must be construed as the expression of the Central Legislature, which was assented to by the Chief Executive, that such parties should be allowed to operate with the maximum of freedom in the public interest, in other words, that their activities should be subject to the minimum of necessary restriction." The other method or fighting elections individually however, does not contemplate existence of political parties but then in that system as well the right of the candidate to reach the audience cannot be denied- If, therefore, a public utility service provides audience through live broadcasts and live telecasts, or in other words provides service for "electronic campaigning" to only if one political party leader or its supporters to the total exclusion of other or others, its action is clearly discriminatory. Learned counsel for the petitioner went even so far as to argue that if the use or perpetuation of the use of the aforesaid practice is not stopped it may inter alia lead to endorsing the exercise of 'undue influence' which is defined in section 81 (1)(e) of the Representation of the People Act as "any official influence or governmental patronage" and is termed as corrupt practice. I need not express any opinion on this precise submission, because, we are not dealing with an 'election petition.' For my part it is sufficient to observe that actually it is to stop this unfair practice and to compel the two Corporations as not to indulge in it that the petitioner has filed this petition to claim equal rights along with those to whom the said two Corporations are extending their services unilaterally to the exclusion of other political parties concerned in this case.

' At this place it a ay be of interest to note the system followed in England by the British Broadcasting Corporation (B. B. C.) (which is a national Corporation). The matter can be examined from two standpoints. Firstly during normal period when there are no elections in the country and secondly during the election period. In 'B. B. C. Handbook 1975' published by the British Broadcasting Corporation incorporating the annual report and accounts 1973-74 it is written at page 215 under the heading "Political and. Parliamentary broadcasting" as follows t - "Broadcasting on political issues began to be seriously developed in 1928 when the B. B. C. Was made free to broadcast on controversial matters. The importance of broadcasting as a medium for spreading political ideas and knowledge among a widening public was soon-recognised by the parties. It proved difficult in the early years to secure agreement between them on the arrangement of balanced broadcasts on political issues-the General Election of 1931 was an example.

In 1935, when the record of the Corporation over its first ten years came under review by the Ulswa ter Committee, political broadcasting was established as one of the important duties of the B. B. C. The Committee paid tribute to the B. B. C. For its policy of holding the scales evenly between the political parties, and its recommendations were largely an endorsement of the B. B. C.'s practice as it had been built up in the early years. The Committee recommended that there should be close cooperation and consultation between the B. B. C. And the authorised spokesmen of the recognised political parties, but took care to point out that they were far from implying that all broadcast treatment of political questions should be controlled by the political party organisation.

Some years later, in 1947, an agreement was reached between the B. B. C., the Government and the Opposition, and recorded in An Aide Memoire, which was published as an appendix to the Report of the Broadcasting Committee, 1949. It established the subsequent pattern of political broadcasting after the war, and indeed for the next 25 years. Certain detailed amendments to the agreement were introduced in 1948, and one of its clauses was suspended in 1955 after debate in Parliament.

In 1969 the agreement was reviewed by representatives of the main political parties and of the B. B.

C. And certain agreed amendements were set out in a revised Aide Memoire."

Party political broadcasts As well as leaving the B. B. C. Free to arrange programmes on political topics, the agreement provides for series of broadcasts by party spokesmen. Each year a limited number of radio and television broadcasting periods is allocated by the B. B. C. To the parties in consultation with them and in accordance with an agreed formula based on the number of electoral votes cast. These broadcasts are known as 'party political broadcasts.' Subjects speakers and contents are chosen by the parties, and any party may, if it wishes, use one or more of its quota to reply to a previous broadcast. The broadcasts are arranged in two series, one given on radio and one on television.

The number of party political broadcasts is normally settled for a period of 12 months in advance.

In addition to the series of national network broadcasts, the Scottish and Welsh National parties have, since 1965, been allocated party political broadcasts in Scotland and Wales, respectively, by agreement with the main parties."

At page 216, column 2, it is written under the heading 'A fair balance' that "over and above these relatively formal arrangements, the B. B. C. Takes steps to ensure that in radio and television a fair balance over a period is maintained between appearances in programmes by Members of Parliament of the political party in power and appearance by Members of parties in Opposition."

While dealing with "General elections : party election broadcasts," it is written that : "The arrangements for party election broadcasts during a general election are agreed beforehand by a Committee comprising political parties and the broadcasting authorities the B B. C. And I. B.

A.). At a general election broadcasting time is made available to the political parties for election broadcasts in radio and television. The committee decides how the time shall be allocated. Other parties not included in these arrangements may qualify for a broadcast if they have 50 or more candidates in the field on Nomination Day. The Government of the day customarily speaks first and last.

Details of the apportionment of broadcasting time for party election broadcasts in February 1974 may be found on page 41. For the general election of October 1974 the allocation of party election broadcasts was as follows :---{{TABLE}} Television broadcast simultaneously by the B. H. C. And I. B. A.

Labour 5 of i0 minutes Conservative : 5 of 10 minutes Liberal : National front : Scottish National Party Welsh National Party Radio Labour : Conservative Liberal 4 of 10 minutes 1 of 5 minutes 2 of 10 minutes (in Scotland only)

1 of 10 minutes (in Wales only)

4 of 10 minutes (Radio 4)

3 of 5 minutes (Radio 2)

4 of 10 minutes (Radio 4)

3 of 5 minutes (Radio 2)

3 of 10 minutes (Radio 4)

2 of 5 minutes (Radio 2)

National Front 1 of 5 minutes (Radio 4)

Scottish National Party 2 of 10 minutes (Radio 4 Scotland)

Welsh National Party 1 of 10 minutes (Radio 4 Wales) {{TABLE}} The figures show that the allocation to the Liberal Party and the Scottish National Party were increased in the October general election."

Referring to "Broadcasting and electoral law" at page 217 it is written that "The participation of parliamentary candidates in broadcast programmes is governed by electoral law. The Representation of the People Act, 1949, required candidates, or their agents, to include expenses incurred in broadcasting in their returns of electoral expenses, The law has since been revised, and under the Representation of the People Act, 1969, broadcasting is given the same exemption as the press in regard to electoral expenses. Under the new Act, however, a candidate is still guilty of an illegal practice at election time if 'for the purpose of promoting or procuring his election' he takes part in a broadcast about his constituency in which any other rival candidate neither takes part nor consents to its going forward without his taking part When the Bill was debated, it was stated in both 'Houses of Parliament that 'taking part' was intended to imply active and conscious participation. In practice the 1969 Act has not imposed any new legal restriction on straight political reporting and, by setting definite anterior time limits for all kinds of elections, it has removed any doubt about the length of an electoral period".

What has been referred to above will show that the process of maintaining impartiality and fair balance will essentially include the process of giving opportunity of like manner to all the political parties and candidates during elections. Similarly if under the relevant law in England when a candidate takes part in a broadcast in his constituency without the rival candidate taking a similar part or consenting to the other candidates unilaterally going on with broadcast campaign it is an illegal practice, surely in our country, it will at least be not a fair practice even though z (subject to further scrutiny at any appropriate time) it may not be technically illegal or corrupt practice. If the two Corporations allow only one political party and one political party's supporters or candidates to utilise broadcasting and telecasting networks at a very wide national level to the total exclusion of the rival parties or candidates, the situation is not dissimilar to a railway company rendering public utility (railway) service but confining use of its service only to one political party and not to the rest. Nothing has been brought on record to show that similar programmes and features were offered to the P. N. A. As were being staged for and by the P. P. P. Supporters during election period.

Nor anything has been shown or pleaded to indicate that the two Corporations made any efforts for any agreed formula and if so when and with whom for accommodating the P. N, A to take part, if I can so call it, in partly political or partly election programmes of broadcasting/ telecasting. The practice of B. B. C. Broadcasting/telecasting as highlighted above could be a good guideline for adoptation. In England apparently for such features and programmes the B. B. C. Might be selling time. In our country if the two Corporations allow the aforesaid facility to the P. P. P. On payment, Mr. M. Anwar, learned counsel for the petitoner, . Submitted that P, N. A. Etc. Would also be willing to pay but if the two Corporations were affording the aforesaid facilities to the P. P. P. (the party in power) gratis, then the same treatment should be meted out to the other parties as well. This is a matter of details and the two Corporations can themselves examine this factor. On our part we have issued the necessary directions on the broad principles as contained in our short order dated 2-3-1977 which well covers the situation.

(g) Re : Equal time In election news

8. There was another complaint and that was that in the news programme the Raido and Television were not giving equal time to the P. N. A, as against the P. P. P. Which was given comparatively more time. It was not the case of the learned Deputy Attorney-General that the two Corporations did not have enough news material of P. N. A. Election activities with them or that it was for this reason that they were not in a position to give equal time to it and nor was it his case that after due editting or to go a step forward after due censor/scizzoring etc. News material of P. N.

A. Election activities all over the country did not come up to the same quantum and bulk so as to warrant same time allocation as was being given to P. P. P. Election activities. It was in this background and on this premises that we have to attend to this matter. The things being as mentioned above, we have not been able to appreciate as to why equal time allocation cannot be observed between the election news of the ruling party and the opposition parties, namely, P. N. A.

When there was no dearth of the news of P. N. A. It is to be taken note of that news of both the parties were being daily published in press and party or independent newspapers and provided a good stock for disseminating them on the principle of equal time. That various and numerous newspapers were daily available to the two Corporations was not denied before us and nor could it even otherwise be den ed as the Radio Broadcasting Corporation itself broadcasts "editorials" of the various newspapers in their daily morning programme. To give a precise example in this connection the refusal of the two Corporations in telecasting/ broadcasting the 'manifesto' of P. N.

A. Has not been appreciated by us inasmuch as, this manifesto was published in various newspapers as was demonstrated before us by producing the relevant newspapers at the bar, whereas the manifesto of the P. P. P. On the other hand was duly telecast/ broadcast fully. We have, it will thus be seen, approached the subject on the precise facie and circumstances hereinbefore mentioned and observe that each case depends upon its own facts and circumstances and whenever any case has any specific features the same have to be specifically attended to accordingly. The particular features of the present case have already been mentioned. On these facts and in these circumstances we note that in this particular case the refusal of the two Corporations to allocate equal time to the parties is not justified and if this plea is accepted it will rather lead to and give them a licence for exploitation of their public utility service in favour of one party and will even otherwise be termed as partial and discriminatory resulting in the violation of the very franchise and charter of the two Corporations themselves which require them to act in as accurate and impartial a manner as possible and to maintain a balance and I can add not to act as an advocate of one or the other. Nothing inherently impossible was brought to our notice in this respect so as to refuse this relief to the petitioner. It may be mentioned that we have already kept a margin in our short order to avoid maintenance of strict exactitude by prefixing the opening part of our order with the phrase "as far as possible" which leaves scope for unavoidable situations if any where sometimes it may net be possible to maintain balance of the rule, for example, due to circumstances beyond the control of the two Corporations or due to uncontrolled succession of events which make the news, from hour to hour and from day to day. In these situations to attempt to balance it artificially would be to distort it. Effort should be made to make the news self- balancing over a period. For example, there may be a day when the Prime Minister makes an important political speech, which is fully reported in the news, but when there is nothing newsworthy to report from the Opposition side ; a day or two later the reverse may be the case.

Similarly I may add a footnote to the words impartially or impartiality. Impartiality does not mean an Olympian neutrality or detachment from those basic moral and constitutional beliefs on which the nation's life is founded. The two Corporations, for example, are not obliged to appear neutral as between truth and untruth, justice and injustice, freedom and slavery, compassion and cruelty.

Tolerance and intolerance etc. These are important reservations, but not one which detract from the respondents' overall determination to be impartial in its presentation of important issues. These are the situations which we have covered by leaving the liberty of "editing" to the respondents and by using the phrase "as far as possible" in our order passed in this case on 2-3-1977.

9. At this place I may point out that these days radio and television enable political parties and candidates for politic& office to reach local and national audience and play an increasingly important part in an election process. Broadcasting and campaign practices that occur or take place during election periods, therefore, are always taken note of, inasmuch as, radio and television are the most popular and widely followed medium of communication. In America due care has been taken by law that this media is not exploited or used as a means of undue influence in favour of one to the total exclusion of the other or others concerned. . For this purpose reference may be made to section 315(a) of the Communications Act, 1934, which reads as follows:-(See the 'United States Code', 1970 Edition (Ttiles 43-49) (Volume 10), page 11675 column 2) : ' Section 315. "Candidates for public office ; facilities ; rules.--(a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station : Provided, that such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is imposed upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any-

(1) bona fide newscast.

(2) bona fide news interview.

'3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or

(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto), shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting news on issues of public importance.'

' The sentence starting from "provided, that such licensee" and ending with "within the meaning of this subsection" was added by P. L. 86-274 in 1959. In "Congress and the Nation", published by Congressional quarterly, I. N. C., Volume II (1965-1968) Chapter 7 (Election Law and Procedure) under the beading "Equal Time" problems Part of T. V. Impact, page 447) it is written that "previously the equal time provision had not been an acute problem to networks and politicians until 1959 when Lar Daly, a self-described "perennial office-seeker" running as a write-in candidate for mayor of Chicago, demanded as much time on Chicago news broadcasts as had been given to Democratic and Republican candidates. Daly's specific complaint concerned a 20 second news shot of Mayor Richard, J. Daly, the Democratic candidate for re-election, greeting a foreign dignitary and a one-minute news report of Daly opening the "March of Dimes" campaign. The Federal Communications Commission Feb. 19, 1959, rules, 4-3, that Daly's complaint was justified, interpreting the law as written to apply to newscasts. This decision unleashed a storm of protests, including a March 19, statement by President Eisenhower that the ruling was "ridiculous" and a request by Attorney-General William P. Rogers that the F. C. C. "reconsider and reverse" its decision.

When the Commission June 16, refused to reverse the ruling, sub-committees of the House and Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committees began hearings on proposals to amend the law. A bill (S 2424) amending section 315(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 was passed July 28 by the Senate and August 18 by the House by voice votes, with the conference report (H. Rept. 1069) agreed to by the House Sept. 2 by a 142-70 standing vote and by the Senate Sept. 3 by voice Vote (P. L. 36-274)". (photostat copy of the relevant extract, reproduced above, has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner). It is to be noticed that even the amendment aforesaid did not exempt patently political broadcasts nor those where major objective appeared to be political rather than news. Similarly it is further written in the aforesaid book that "in response to a query by the Columbia Broadcasting System concerning the effects of P. L. 86-274, the F. C. C'.

Ruled Oct. 1, 1964 that any radio or television station carrying a live presidential news conference while the president was a candidate for re-election, or a press conference by a "substantial or significant non-incumbent" nominee, had to grant equal time to all other presidential candidates, including those running on third party tickets". Also see Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. Federal Communication Commission together with Note 5 at page 999 which further explains "the fairness doctrine" promulgated in America in 1949 and points out that previous "unfair treatment" of a Broadcasting company can well be considered as a ground for refusing renewal of its licence. In our country, in my B opinion, the aforesaid objective is achieved by clause

(e) of subsection (2) of section 10 of the Pakistan Broadcasting Act and Article III(2) of the Memorandum of Association of the Pakistan Television Corporation and Article 3 of the Constitution already mentioned above. All these provisions of law, in my opinion, are sufficient to require to the two Corporations to observe equal time rule in their relevant programmes under discussion. Since we have no statutory exemptions regarding news (and it may be noticed that the exemptions in American Law exempt only the "bona fide actions")-I think the general equal time rule which is based on equity, justice, and good conscience can squarely fall within the ambit of the provisions of law hereinbefore mentioned and can safely be applied to election news which is the precise subject-matter at the moment under discussion. The learned Deputy Attorney-General submitted that the matter of broadcasting/ telecasting news should be left open to the "sense of fairplay" and "editorial judgments" or "journalistic judgment" of the two Corporations and this Court should not issue any writ which may interfere with the aforesaid. I have no intention to stop any functionary functioning within the scope of his functions but if their total refusal to accept applicability of equal time rule (as was the stand of the learned Deputy Attorney-General) to election news, election features and election programmes of the two Corporations then surely a case did exist to issue a writ to the two Corporations to observe the aforesaid rule, and so far as the details are concerned, our short order dated 2-3-1977 already takes note thereof when it directs the observance of that rule "as far as possible" and also gives discount for the editing etc of the news. The fact that in America this rule is statutorily in force is a pointer towards the fact that it is not something inherently impossible as was being suggested by the learned Deputy Attorney-General. He further suggested that to act impartially or to maintain balance did not mean to C observe equal time.

The plea is not correct because inequality of time C sometimes itself may amount to showing partiality or imbalance. I would, therefore, observe that equality of time is not excluded from the concept of impartiality and maintaining balance and I would not like to cartail the scope of this concept by bolding otherwise. These concepts should be maintained in letter and spirit and any artificial effort get out of their impact cannot be encouraged. Inter alia, it is this denial of applicability of equal time rule which has necessitated the issuance of the writ in this particular behalf in this case. We asked the representatives of the two Corporations, who were present in person in Court, to state whether the Federal Government had, as a matter of policy or otherwise, given any instructions to them as not to observe the equal time rule in this respect. Their answer was in the negative. If that is so then it means the hesitation to observe this rule was only on the part of the two Corporations themselves which gave rise to the wide spread grievance and23 protests as is clear from Annexures `R/I' to R/8' placed on record by the learned Deputy-Attorney General himself and the earlier notice of demand Annexures 'A', ultimately leading to the institution of this writ petition in this Court. We further asked whether in future the two Corporations would observe this rule. The answer of the learned Deputy Attorney General was that this rule was not applicable to the activities and functions of his clients. Obviously we had thus to issue the writ in the manner and form of our order dated 2-3-1977. The present judgment and the judgment of my brother the learned Chief Justice state the facts and provide the detailed reasons for the aforesaid order. It is clarified that this judgment is confined to and deals with the duties and obligations of the two Corporations during period of general elections in the country and should be read in that context.

' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-By our short order passed at the conclusion of the hearing of this writ petition, the following directions, for the purpose of maintaining balance and impartiality, were issued :

(a) equal time, as far as possible, should be given to the activities with regard to the election campaign to the two major participants in the elections, 1.e. The Pakistan People's Party and the Pakistan National Alliance in their daily news bulletins ;

(b) permit the representatives of the Pakistan National Alliance to televise and broadcast the manifesto of the said Alliance and address the nation over their systems whenever the representatives of the Pakistan People's Party are permitted to do so ; and

(c) (I) either refrain from expressing any views on the election issues through its commentators ;

(ii) or do so with respect to both the above-named participants.

' Also, while telecasting or broadcasting news about the various public meetings held by the contesting parties, named-above, either the live voice of an equal number of political leaders of each side addressing public meetings should be given or, in the alternative, the voice of no one from either side should be broadcast alive, unless of course, the Prime Minister of Pakistan addresses the nation in his capacity as such (in contradistinction to his capacity as the Chairman of the Pakistan People's Party when he addresses public gatherings in connection with the election campaign of his party) on any important national issue, including the conduct of the forthcoming elections, or any other important matter concerning the country or the nation at large.

2. The reasons for passing the above order have been given in detail in the judgment of my Lord the Chief Justice and the judgment of Mr. Justice Karam Elahi Chauban, which I have had the advantage of persuing and I am in respectful agreement with them. I am, however, tempted to add a few observations in connection with the directions made to the respondents by us to give "equal time", so far as possible, to the election activities of the major participants and to otherwise accord equality of treatment in the projection of news and the expression of views with respect to the programmes of the two main contesting parties.

3. The provisions of section 10(1)(e) of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act (XXXII) 1973 and clause (2) of Article III of Memorandum of Association of the Pakistan Television Corporation, are relevant in this context and require consideration. Section 10(0(e) of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act provides : "10(1).-The functions of the Corporation shall be-

(e) to bring to public awareness the whole range of significant activities and to present news or events in as factual, accruate and impartial a manner as possible."

(Underlining is mine)

' Clause (2) of Article 3 of the Memorandum of Association of Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd. Is in the following terms : "To ensure that programmes telecast by the Company from its each Television Station maintain a high general standard in all respects and in particular in respect of their content, quality, balance* and wide range of the subject-matters, having regard to programme as a whole."

(Underlining is by me)

' The perusal of the above provisions indicates that they enjoin on the two media that they should maintain impartiality and balance in the discharge of their functions.

4. The question that arises is whether this obligation requires the said media to provide "equal time" to the activities of the two major participants in the elections and otherwise require them to accord equality of treatment in the dissemination of their party programmes and expression of views in respect of election issue?

5. One aspect of the above problem came for examination before the Federal Communications Commission in the United States of America while interpreting the provisions of section 315(a) of the Communication Act of 1934, which inter alia, provided that : "If any licence shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station. . . . .

(Underlining is mine)

The terms of this provision were construed by the aforesaid Federal Communications Commission, in a decision (made by it on February 19, 1959) to apply to newscasts and it was further held that in view of the requirement to afford equal opportunities to the candidates it was necessary to give "equal time" in the broadcast of news to all candidates. In view of the far-reaching effects of this ruling a motion was made for its reconsideration and reversal, but the Commission (on June 16, 1959) refused to reverse the ruling. Thus the law obliging the broadcasting station to afford "equal opportunities" was construed by the Commission to imply that it was incumbent upon it to give "equal time" to all the candidates. This necessitated an amendment to the above section of the Communications Act, which was made a few months later, and at the end of section 315 (a) of the Communications Act the following provision was inserted : "Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any (I) bona fide newscast, (2) bona fide news interview, (3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or (4) on-the spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto) shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection."

' The effect of the amendment was that in the eventualities mentioned above, the "equal time" rule was not attracted. But it is relevant for us to note that on the wording of the clause, as it was originally enacted, it was found that it enjoined upon the broadcasting station to give "equal time" in the broadcast of news to all candidates.

6. In my opinion the position in our country is not dissimilar because the provisions of clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 10 of the Pakistan Broadcasting Act, obliging the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation to present news of events in as "impartial" a manner as possible, and the provisions of clause (3) of Article HI of the Memorandum of Association of the Pakistan Television Corporation, enjoining the Corporation to maintain "balance" in respect of the programmes telecast by it, are in content similar to the provision directing the affording of "equal opportunities" to all candidates, contained in section 315(a) of the U. S. Communications Act of 1934,

7. The term "impartial" as defined in the English language dictionaries means "fair", "just", "equitable", "not favouring one more than another". In other words, the term "impartial" in the relevant respect would require the radio stations to bring to public awareness news in "fair", "just" and "equitable" a manner that "one party is not favoured over the other". Similarly, the Television Authorities must maintain a balance. One of the meanings of tee word "balance" as given in the Shorter Exford English Dictionary is "to equal in weight". Thus the Television Stations are enjoined to maintain* * equality. The net result is that the provisions relating to the responsibilities of both the media cast a duty upon them, so far as possible, to grant equal facilities and provide equal coverage to the activities of both the parties.

8. It may be observed that apart from the decision of an agency, such as the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Court in the United States too has intervened in cases of discriminatory programming by a T. V. Station, See Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. Federal Communications Commission. In this case a broadcasting station in Jackson, Mississippi applied for renewal of the broadcasting licence. The protestors petitioned to intervene to present evidence and arguments in opposition before the Commission. However, the Federal Communications Commission dismissed the petition and, without a hearing, granted a conditional renewal of licence for one-year period. The protestors appealed and the Court of Appeals held that responsible representatives of listening public have standing as parties in interest to contest renewal of broadcast licence. The Court further held that the Commission must hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve public interest issue raised by claims of broadcaster's racial discrimination, religious discrimination, oppressive over commercialization by advertising announcements, and violation of fairness doctrine. The specific complaint of discrimination was to the effect that Negro individuals and institutions were given very much less television exposure than others and that programmes were generally disrespectful towards Negroes. In other words it was urged that the T.

V. Station did not give a fair and balanced presentation of controversial issues. The Court accordingly held that the grant of a renewal of a licence for one year was erroneous and remanded the case to the Commission for decision afresh after allowing the protestors an opportunity to lead evidence.

9. The judgment of the Court was largely based on the "fairness doctrine" promulgated in 1949. This doctrine is explained in Note 5 in the report of the above-mentioned case at page 999 in the following words- "5. In promulgating the Fairness Doctrine in 1949 the Commission emphasized the "right of the public to be informed, rather than any right on the part of the Government, any broadcast licensee or any individual member of the public to broadcast his own particular views on any matter . ." The Commission characterized this as "the foundation stone of the American system of broadcasting."

Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F. C. C. 1246, 1249 (1949). This policy received Congressional approval in the 1959 amendment of section 31a which speaks in terms of "the obligation imposed upon (licensees) under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance." (1959) 73 Stat.

557, (1964) 47 U SC 315(a)."

10. The above precedent is also relevant in the context of the present case because the purport of the "fairness doctrine" is incorporated in the provisions of section 10(1)(e) of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act and clause (2) of section 3 of Memorandum of Association of the Pakistan Television Corporation.

11. On all other questions arising in this case, which have been dealt with at length by my Lord the Chief Justice and my learned brother Mr. Justice K. E. Chauhan, I have nothing to add. The above are a few additional reasons in explanation of the short order made by us at the conclusion of the hearing of the case on 2-3-1977. PLD 1975 Lab. 532 PLD 1972 Lab. 847 PLD 1975 Lab. 53224 1 2 3 PLD 197 1 Lab. 847 PLD 1976 SC 581 42 LT 546 (1849) 14 Q B 459 PLD 1960 SC 266 PLD 1966 SC 848 PLD 1965 SC 90 PLD 1965 SC 201 PLD 1977 Lah. 234 PLD 1975 SC 244 PLD 1964 Pesh. 167 PLD 1966 SC 848 PLD 1973 Lah. 425 PLD 1973 1 ah. 188 PLD 1974 SC 146 1932 A C 304 (P C) (1935) 54 C L R 262 PLD 1975 SC 244 PLD 1964 SC 673 359 F R (2nd Series) 994 [Here in italics] (359) F P. (2nd Series) 994