Judges stress strict action against indecent social media material targeting women
Police officers walk past the Supreme Court of Pakistan building, in Islamabad, Pakistan April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court on Monday took a stern view of the circulation of obscene content against women on social media, observing that if the situation had become so dangerous, children should not be given mobile phones and that crimes involving attacks on personal dignity must be dealt with strictly.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail made the observations as the court took up a bail petition in a case involving the alleged circulation of obscene and immoral content against women on social media.
The hearing was conducted by a two-member bench comprising Justice Mandokhail and Justice Musarrat Hilali, which heard the bail application of accused Tayyab Dar, who has been charged with posting immoral content about women on social media platforms.
During the proceedings, the complainant’s counsel argued that the objectionable material allegedly spread by the accused was still available on social media and included posts about women that could not even be read aloud in court.
In response, the defence counsel maintained that the Facebook posts had been uploaded by the accused’s son, arguing that no case could be made against the father for the actions of his son.
He further contended that the SIM card registered in the father’s name was being used by the son.
However, the complainant’s counsel informed the court that investigations had revealed that both the father and son used the same mobile phone.
At this point, Justice Mandokhail remarked that if the situation was indeed so alarming, children should not be provided with mobile phones, adding that such crimes must be viewed seriously, as no one could be allowed to malign the honour of others.
Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned whether the accused had never been informed about how his number was being used, observing that documentary evidence was available against Tayyab Dar.
The complainant’s counsel requested additional time to submit further documents, which the court granted before adjourning the hearing for one week.
