The Lahore High Court (LHC) has dismissed a petition seeking regulation of streaming platforms such as Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, ruling that existing laws do not cover digital services of this nature.
Justice Raheel Kamran Shaikh issued a 20-page written verdict on Thursday in response to the petition filed by a private company. The Punjab government, represented by Assistant Advocate General Muhammad Usman Khan, opposed the plea.
The court observed that the Motion Picture Ordinance of 1979 was enacted well before the digital era and applies only to films screened in cinemas. The legislation was designed to ensure that movies released in theaters were subject to content regulation, with no provision for online streaming services, which did not exist at the time.
Following the 18th Constitutional Amendment, the matter of censor boards came under provincial jurisdiction. Each province subsequently enacted its own Motion Picture Act, expanding coverage to television and stage dramas. However, none of the provinces introduced laws to regulate content on social media or streaming platforms.
The judgment highlighted the petitioner’s argument that, as cinema content is monitored under the Motion Picture Ordinance, streaming platforms should also fall under the same framework. The petitioner, who owns a cinema and holds a license to screen films, contended that extending the regulation would ensure uniform content monitoring.
The court rejected this reasoning, noting that millions of hours of content are uploaded on platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, making it practically impossible to censor such material before public availability. The ruling emphasized that if the legislature had intended to regulate streaming platforms, it would have amended the law accordingly.
Justice Shaikh’s verdict made clear that online streaming platforms operate under a fundamentally different model than traditional cinemas. As a result, they cannot be brought under the ambit of laws originally designed for physical film screenings.
The petition was therefore dismissed as being inconsistent with the legal framework.