Court upholds order, saying restriction on statements until the conclusion of the trial is both legal and justified
LAHORE:
The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Tuesday issued a key directive in the defamation case filed by singer Ali Zafar against actress and singer Meesha Shafi, instructing the trial court to conclude the case within 30 days.
Justice Ahmed Nadeem Arshad rejected a petition filed by Shafi challenging the trial court’s earlier order, which had barred her from making public statements regarding the case until its final decision.
The LHC upheld the trial court’s order, emphasising that the restriction on statements until the conclusion of the trial is both legal and justified. The court noted that while freedom of expression is a fundamental right, the judiciary exercises utmost caution in matters involving such rights to ensure fair trial procedures.
During the hearing, Meesha Shafi’s counsel argued that injunctions should not be imposed in defamation cases, but the court dismissed this contention, affirming that courts have the authority to restrict statements until a final verdict is issued.
In 2018, Zafar had filed a defamation suit against Shafi who accused him of sexual harassment. He filed the defamation suit through his counsel Rana Intizar, demanding Rs1 billion in damages from Meesha.
Intizar contended before the court that Shafi has damaged the reputation of his client with “baseless allegations”. He pleaded that the court direct Shafi to tender an unconditional apology and pay Rs1 billion in damages.
Zafar had previously sent a legal notice to Shafi stating that her tweets, dated April 19, 2018, are “false, slanderous, and defamatory” and “caused tremendous injury to the plaintiff’s reputation, goodwill, and livelihood.”
The trial court had originally imposed the gag order on January 24, 2019, following Zafar’s defamation suit. Shafi’s subsequent appeal to the LHC has now been dismissed.
In 2021, the Supreme Court accepted Shafi’s petition filed against the LHC order for preliminary hearing. After hearing the arguments, the apex court remarked that the points raised by the petitioner must be reviewed, and clubbed the case with the suo motu notice taken to define sexual harassment, also pending in the court.
The hearing was adjourned for an indefinite period.
