CM Pak Limited

Vs
The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority

Group Members:

Shaikh Sami Uddin Nizami (23296)

Syed Muhammad Furqan (11867)
Muhammad Bin Abdullah ( 18349)
Table of Content

 Introduction
 CM Pak Appeal
 PTA Argument
 Important Provision of Act of 1996
 Islamabad High Court Judgement
 Supreme Court Decision
Introduction
CM Pak challenged the authority of PTA to suspend cellular services.

Case:
Quasi Legislative

Appellant:
CM Pak Limited

Respondent:
The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority

Court:
Supreme Court of Pakistan & Islamabad High Court
CM Pak Appeal

 PTA suspended their services from time to time

 Fundamental rights are violated when the cellular services are suspended.

 Company is unable to provide the uninterrupted services to its customers.

Appeal Details
 Authority is under a statutory obligation to ensure that the rights of the licensees are duly protected.
 
 The services under the licenses can only be discontinued or disconnected either under clause 6.21 or clause 6.71; section
54(3) of the Act of 1996 mandates that suspension of operations can only be justified if the President exercises the
power relating to the proclamation of an emergency.
 
 If operations are suspended under section 54 then the Federal Government is required to compensate the licensees for
the losses suffered by the latter.
 
 Section 54(3) of the Act of 1996 can only be invoked if there is a proclamation of emergency under Articles 232 to 237.
 
 There is no provision under the Act of 1996 to empower the Federal Government or the Authority to direct the blocking
of cellular mobile operations on the basis of mere apprehension e.g. to avoid any untoward incident.

 The suspension of mobile phone services by the Authority is ultra vires of section 54; the fundamental rights guaranteed
under Articles 10-A, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 19-A are violated when mobile phone users are deprived from availing the
services.
PTA Argument
 Federal govt can issue policy directive : section 8(2)(c) read with section 54 (2) of
the Act of 1996

 PTA is under obligation to follow that policy: section 8(1)

 Section 54 (2) give federal govt preference and priority.

To be decided by court ?
 Determine the scope of power to federal/authority to direct companies to suspend cellular
services.

 Interpretation of section 8 and 54(3).

 Policy Directive conflicts with section 54 of the Act of 1996 ?

Important Provisions of Act of 1996
 Section 8(1) Federal Government may issue policy directives to the Authority . But these
directives cannot conflict with the Act of 1996.
(2)The Authority shall comply with such directives.
 Section 54
(sub section 1)  Federal government has the authority to intercept calls and messages in
the context of National Security or on apprehension of the commission of any
offence.

(sub section 2)  Federal government has preference/priority in telecommunication systems over

any licensee in case of war & hostilities against Pakistan.

(sub section 3)  Federal government can suspend license/operations of any licensee. However,
the aforementioned can only be executed when emergency is declared
President of Pakistan.
Islamabad High Court Judgement
 Section 8 is neither independent nor exclusive, it must be subject to other provisions

 Section 8 (2c) must be read with sub section 1 of section 8.

 Services or operations of a licensed telecommunication service provider can only be suspended under
clause 54 (3) read with clause 6.7.1 or clause 6.7.1 or under clause (c)(ii) of subsection 2 of section 23
under the act of 1996.

 Federal government cannot issue any directive which is inconsistent with section 54(3).

 The policy directive dated 26-12-2009 is inconsistent with section 54(3) and hence is declared as illegal,
ultra vires and without lawful authority and jurisdiction and therefore void.

 Apprehensions relating to public safety, law and order or the happening of an untoward incident can by no
stretch of the imagination attract section 54(2).
 Supreme Court Decision
 The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled that the government can suspend cellular services under
“special circumstances”. 

 Licensee should have taken up the matter in the first instance with the Federal Government but
instead it straightaway challenged the orders before the High Court in an appeal.

 Section 8 and Section 54 operate in separate spheres and situation with no conflict between them
nor any primacy being given to one over the other.

 The policy directive dated 26.12.2009 issued by the Federal Government in exercise of its power
under section 8 (2)( C )of the act is a piece of delegated legislation.

 The IHC has arrived at a hasty and incorrect conclusion hence the IHC Judgement is set aside.
References

 http://digitalrightsmonitor.pk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/F.A.O.-42-2016-Against-Order-
finalFAONo.42of2016.CMPakLimitedv.ThePTAetc.636552442049031490.pdf

 https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_judgements/c.a._977_2018.pdf

 https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/Jurisprudence_Shaping_Digital_Rights_in_South_A
sia_Dec_10_3.pdf

 https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/cm-pak-limited-v-pakistan-telecom
munication-authority/