On Thursday, Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice Aalia Neelum offered the federal government a “last chance” to clarify the situation surrounding the blockage of the social media platform X in Pakistan.
The access to X has been disrupted since February 17, 2024, following former Rawalpindi commissioner Liaquat Chattha’s accusations that the chief election commissioner and a senior Supreme Court judge were involved in rigging the February 8 general elections.
This move has sparked condemnation from rights organizations and journalist groups, with internet service providers also lamenting their losses due to the disruption. The United States has also urged Pakistan to lift the restrictions on social media platforms.
Thursday’s hearing was conducted by a three-member bench led by Chief Justice Aalia Neelum, who heard petitions from journalist Shakir Mahmood and others. The federal government, Ministry of Law, Ministry of Information, and several other bodies were named as respondents in the case. Justice Neelum directed the government to explain how the blockage of X was implemented. “The government must respond in court,” she stated, adding, “After this, the head of the cabinet will be summoned.”
In the previous hearing, the LHC had directed the interior ministry and the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) to submit a detailed report on the ban and clarify which government institutions were still using the blocked platform.
PTA Chairman Major General (retd) Hafeezul Rehman appeared before the bench and submitted a written response. Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Asad Bajwa informed the court that the interior ministry had no mechanism to track who was using social media platforms through virtual private networks (VPNs). Justice Neelum noted that while the ministry had the capability to block X, it lacked the means to track its users.
Bajwa mentioned that the PTA had set up a committee to investigate the use of VPNs, but Justice Neelum dismissed this as an attempt to distract the court. The DAG also mentioned that a letter had been sent to X’s authorities, to which the judge inquired whether the government had any formal agreement with the platform. When Bajwa confirmed that no agreement existed, the judge questioned why X would respond to a government that had no agreement with them.
“This bench is not here just to receive an answer as a formality,” Justice Neelum remarked, while Justice Ali Zia inquired whether PTA’s own X account was still active. Upon confirmation, Justice Neelum commented, “You are banning it but using it yourself?”
The PTA chairman admitted that all X users in Pakistan were using VPNs, which led Justice Neelum to ask if he was personally using one. Rehman clarified that he wasn’t, but the authority itself was. “This is illegal,” Justice Neelum remarked, to which Rehman apologized, stating that he had only just been informed about the situation.
Justice Farooq Haider asked whether VPNs could be blocked, to which Rehman responded that it would take some time. Justice Neelum criticized the PTA’s lack of progress, noting that after a year of the ban, the authority was still asking for more time.
Justice Haider questioned how VPNs were being used to access X, with Rehman explaining that VPNs were essential for software, banking, and freelancing industries.
Justice Zia highlighted the inconsistency between the PTA blocking X and using it themselves, while DAG Bajwa argued that VPN usage was legal to some extent.
Justice Neelum requested data on VPN usage to access X, to which Rehman admitted he didn’t have exact figures. The judge expressed her disappointment, remarking, “You occupy such a high position, yet you have no data.”
Justice Zia pointed out that Rehman had earlier stated that the PTA would immediately restore X if ordered by the court, suggesting that the authority had made a mistake and was now seeking help.
Justice Neelum concluded, “Under the rules, content can be blocked, but the platform itself cannot be shut down. You can restrict inappropriate use, but you cannot block X entirely.”
She also questioned why the government had not fulfilled its responsibilities and expressed frustration with the PTA chairman, saying, “We do not have time to waste.” Justice Neelum hinted at the possibility of contempt of court action for wasting the bench’s time. The hearing was adjourned until April 8.
