Vishal Ahmed Shakir v. Federation of Pakistan and Others

Title and Citation of the Case:

Vishal Ahmed Shakir v. Federation of Pakistan and Others

PLD 2026 Lahore 395

Court

Lahore High Court

Judges on the Bench

Mr. Justice Ali Zia Bajwa

Parties

Petitioner: Vishal Ahmed Shakir

Respondents: Federation of Pakistan and others

Facts of the Case:

The Petitioner in this case filed a constitutional petition under Article 199[1] as Public Interest Litigation, challenging the practice of law enforcement agencies that allow media reporters to interview the accused persons while they were in the custody, particularly by recording and broadcasting their alleged confessional statements before trial. The Petitioner pleaded that such conduct violated the constitutional rights of accused persons, including the right to privacy, right to dignity, protection against self-incrimination and right to fair trial[2]

Reports were submitted by police, Federal Investigation Agency, Excise and Taxation Department, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority and Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority and other authorities during proceedings and they acknowledged before the court that Media Coverage of accused persons while they were in custody of law enforcement agencies violated their constitutional rights and also affected the ongoing investigation. The Court in this case examined the constitutional balance between the Article 19 and Article 4, 9, 10-A, 13 and 14 of the constitution of Pakistan and repeatedly emphasized that an arrest does not deprive an accused person of constitutional protections. The Court also considered media exposure of people stopped at checkpoints, not only arrested persons.

Issues/Questions of Law:

1. Whether broadcasting the confession of an accused before the media violates the constitution of Pakistan?
2. Whether media interference violates an accused’s right to a fair trial?
3. Whether freedom of speech under Article 19 allows the media to publish confessional interviews of accused persons?
4. Whether law enforcement agencies can legally permit media interviews of persons in custody?

Arguments Summary:

Petitioner (Vishal Ahmed Shakir)

The petitioner argued that every accused person is innocent until proven guilty by a court. He said that showing confessions on media violated the rights to dignity, privacy, and a fair trial. He also argued that media trials create public pressure and can affect the justice system. That’s why every accused person has fundamental rights that are granted to them under the Constitution of Pakistan.

Respondents (Federation of Pakistan and others)

The government authorities informed the court that they were aware of their statutory responsibilities to stop media interviews and public exposure of persons in custody .The Advocate General Punjab and Prosecutor General Punjab further submitted that exposing accused persons to the media while in custody infringes their dignity and right to a fair trial. They also stated that this practice often weakens the prosecution case and harms the integrity of the criminal justice system. The respondents also admitted that media exposure affects ongoing investigations and it can damage the prosecution’s case.

Decision with detail reasoning:

The Lahore High Court allowed the petition.

The court held that an accused person does not lose his fundamental rights after arrest. Even if a person is in police custody, he is still entitled to dignity, privacy and a fair trial under the Constitution of Pakistan. The court observed that forcing or allowing an accused to give interviews or confessional statements before the media is unconstitutional because it humiliates the accused and amounts to self-incrimination.

The court explained that Article 4, 9, 10-A, 13, and 14 of the constitution work together to protect every person’s legal rights. The right to life includes the right to live with dignity and without humiliation. The state has a constitutional duty to protect these rights, even when a person under investigation or in custody.

The court further held that media interviews of accused persons amount to a media trial. Such reporting creates a public impression that the accused is guilty before the court has decided the case.

Regarding freedom of speech under Article 19, the Court held that the media has the right to report news accurately, but it cannot publish false, misleading, defamatory or unprofessional material that compromises an accused person’s right to a fair trial. For these reasons, the Court directed all law enforcement agencies not to allow media interviews of persons in custody. The Court also directed regulatory authorities to regulate media conduct and prevent media trials of persons in custody. The Court further held that freedom of speech under Article 19 is not absolute. The Court applied the doctrine of proportionality and held that when freedom of speech conflicts with the accused’s rights to dignity, a fair trial and protection against self-incrimination, those rights prevail. The Court further held that any officer who permits such media exposure commits misconduct, the heads of investigating agencies are responsible for ensuring compliance, and police should not expose citizens at checkpoints merely to gain publicity.

Ratio Decidendi:

The media has the constitutional right to report criminal cases but this right is not absolute. Media cannot broadcast the interviews or confessional statements of an accused person in custody. Such acts violate the accused’s right to dignity, privacy, and a fair trial. Therefore, when media freedom conflicts with these constitutional rights, constitutional rights of the accused prevail over media freedom to the extent necessary to protect dignity, privacy, the presumption of innocence, protection against self-incrimination and the right to a fair trial. Freedom of speech under Article 19 is not absolute and is subject to the accused’s fundamental rights.

Conclusion:

The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and held that media interviews and confessional statements of accused persons in custody violate their constitutional rights. Freedom of speech under Article 19 cannot be exercised in a way that harms the dignity, privacy, or fair trial rights of an accused person. Therefore, the petition was allowed, and clear directions were issued to prevent media interviews and confessional statements of persons in custody.