On Friday, the Lahore High Court (LHC) requested a report from the Ministry of Interior regarding the usage of X during the hearing of a petition challenging the ban on the social media platform. Access to X has remained restricted since February 17, 2024, following allegations made by former Rawalpindi commissioner Liaquat Chattha, who accused the chief election commissioner and a senior Supreme Court judge of involvement in rigging the February 8 general elections. The ban has drawn criticism from rights groups, journalists’ organizations, and even internet service providers, who reported significant disruptions and financial losses. Additionally, the United States urged Pakistan to lift restrictions on social media platforms. The matter was heard by a three-member bench, led by Chief Justice Alia Neelam. Journalist Shakir Mahmood, along with others, had filed petitions against the ban, naming the federal government, Ministries of Law and Information, and other entities as respondents. During the initial proceedings, the court directed the Ministry of Interior to submit a report on X’s functionality. The LHC also sought clarification on the operations of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), summoning a PTA official to present records. Justice Neelum emphasized that the report must disclose whether any government institutions were using X despite its ban and clarify the platform’s legal standing. All parties involved were instructed to submit their responses to the court. Deputy Attorney General Asad Bajwa informed the bench that the platform had been blocked at the interior ministry’s direction. In response, Justice Neelum asked the ministry to explain X's current status. Justice Ali Zia Bajwa added, “If X is still accessible despite a complete ban, who is accountable for this?” The PTA’s lawyer, Advocate Muhammad Afzal Khan, explained that people were bypassing the ban by using VPNs (Virtual Private Networks). The bench subsequently directed the matter to a single bench for further hearing. Advocate Azhar Siddique, representing the petitioners, stated that the single bench’s decision could be appealed before a double bench. The hearing was adjourned until March 20.
