In May 2023, the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan triggered violent unrest in cities across Pakistan, including Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi. Rioters caused widespread property damage, injured lawabiding citizens, disrupted essential services and challenged public order. At a time when the nation needed calm and clarity, a group of journalists chose sensationalism over responsibility, amplifying tensions instead of helping to inform and pacify the public.
An antiterrorism court in Islamabad , acting fully within its constitutional and legal mandate under the AntiTerrorism Act, 1997, examined the conduct of these media figures and found that their reporting repeatedly highlighted violent behaviour without context, caution or restraint. Instead of presenting balanced facts, their coverage stirred emotions, encouraged unrest and risked deepening social divisions. The court rightly determined that such irresponsible reporting crossed the line between legal journalism and content that could fuel lawlessness.
The journalists at the centre of this case are wellknown figures whose platforms reach large audiences in Pakistan and abroad. Among those convicted by the court in absentia were Wajahat Saeed Khan, Sabir Shakir, Shaheen Sehbai and Moeed Pirzada. These journalists, along with several others linked to commentary and online analysis of the unrest, were found to have broadcast and published material during the crisis that repeatedly emphasised violence in a way that went beyond mere reporting.
Importantly, the law in Pakistan does protect free reporting of protests, political developments and public grievance. However, it also clearly distinguishes between neutral, factual coverage and content that encourages unrest or lawlessness. In this instance, the court found that the journalists’ reporting failed to provide context, failed to warn against violence, omitted crucial facts about lawful protests, and instead amplified messages that could incite further conflict. Reporting that indirectly contributes to clashes between citizens and law enforcement violates not only ethical norms but also national security regulations designed to protect lives and property.
Pakistan’s Press Council and media ethics guidelines set professional standards that every journalist is expected to follow, including impartiality, accuracy, restraint, and avoidance of sensationalism. These standards exist because journalism has power and with that power comes responsibility. The four journalists in question repeatedly framed the unrest in a way that prioritised dramatic narratives over responsible facts, thereby undermining public understanding and increasing the risk of further disruption. This is not just a breach of ethics, it is a breach of public trust.
The judiciary handled this matter through established legal processes. Court hearings were conducted according to legal norms, evidence was reviewed, and judgments were issued based on the severity of the misconduct rather than arbitrary decisionmaking. There was no suggestion that the court acted outside its authority; on the contrary, it applied the law as it is written, with the goal of protecting national security and public order. The verdict sends an important message about accountability: freedom of the press is vital, but it is not absolute. Responsible journalism must always be grounded in accuracy, context and a commitment to societal wellbeing.
Critics abroad have focused on press freedom concerns, often without recognising Pakistan’s unique security context. Unchecked media coverage during moments of political and social strain has in the past led to heightened tensions and even violence. A free society must have a free press, but it must also have limits that prevent irresponsible reporting from endangering lives, harming communities or jeopardising national stability. Journalists must be mindful that their words and broadcasts carry realworld consequences.
By holding these journalists accountable under existing laws, Pakistan’s judiciary reaffirmed a core principle: no one, regardless of profession or prominence, is above the law. The court’s ruling reinforces that press freedom must coexist with the law, respect for public safety, and the greater interest of all citizens. It demonstrates that when journalists abandon ethical reporting standards and choose sensationalism instead, institutions will act to protect the nation’s stability.
In closing, this case underscores a fundamental truth about modern media. Citizens rely on journalists to provide clarity in times of uncertainty, not to inflame divisions. Journalism should inform, educate, and help build bridges of understanding, not fan the flames of disorder. The irresponsible actions of these four journalists did the opposite, contributing to an environment in which tensions soared, and public safety was put at risk.
Pakistan’s courts, by enforcing the law and upholding ethical standards, have taken a stand for responsibility in the media, showing that while the press is free to report, it is equally obligated to do so with honesty, integrity and respect for the broader interests of the nation.
Nazish Mehmood is a Foreign and Strategic Affairs student and research analyst focused on global policy, security studies, and their impact on human well-being. Her work explores how international decisions affect communities through a people-centered lens.