Starlink applied for a license on February 24, 2022, and is currently in communication with the new regulatory body, according to a briefing given to the National Assembly Standing Committee on IT, which was chaired by Senator Palwasha Khan, the PTA Chairman.

Starlink needs to register with both the PSB and the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) before to starting its satellite services in Pakistan. According to the PTA Chairman, the body will proceed with further actions after the registration procedure is over.

Along with Starlink, Shanghai Space Technology is also making its debut in Pakistan, which should boost internet access and spur technical advancement in the nation.

The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) has also made it plain that until it has government approval, it is unable to grant a license to Elon Musk’s satellite internet service, Starlink.

The chairman stated that Starlink has promised to adhere to government regulations and not circumvent the system.

The committee also chose to call a meeting of the Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO) to take up the topic of space technology regulation. Additionally, the committee asked why the PTA is assigning its duties to other groups.

Prior to the launch of Starlink in Pakistan, Elon Musk, the CEO of SPACEX, stated that he was seeking permission from the Pakistani government.

According to information, Pakistani social media user Sanam Jamali and Elon Musk had a discussion on the launch of Starlink in Pakistan on the social media site X (previously Twitter).

Sanam asked Musk to launch Starlink in Pakistan, claiming that it might open the door to a better future by giving people access to the internet and chances to advance.

In response, Musk said that he is awaiting Pakistani official approval to introduce Starlink there. Through a massive network of satellites, SpaceX’s Starlink offers internet services.

Starlink

SpaceX, a private aircraft manufacturer and space transport services provider established by Elon Musk, is the developer of the Starlink satellite internet network. The constellation uses a network of thousands of tiny satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO) to deliver fast, dependable, and worldwide internet connectivity.

The way we access the internet could be completely changed by this cutting-edge technology, particularly in isolated and underdeveloped locations where conventional fiber-optic and cellular networks are scarce or nonexistent.

High-speed internet access with latency as low as 20 ms is what the Starlink constellation is intended to provide; this is on par with or even better than many current fiber-optic networks.

Every Starlink satellite includes a phased array antenna, which enables it to connect with numerous users at once, offering a flexible and high-capacity network. Fast and dependable internet connection is available to users from almost anywhere in the world with Starlink, which is an exciting advancement for digital inclusion and global connectedness.

The federal government’s negotiation team has completed a comprehensive written reply to the demands put out by PTI.

The statement addresses all points presented by PTI, including the rejection to establish a judicial panel for the events of May 9.

The administration highlighted that judicial commissions are constituted for issues not subject to judicial review, and cases pertaining to May 9 are currently being adjudicated in courts, with certain persons having been condemned by military tribunals.

PTI has consented to engage in negotiations with the Prime Minister’s committee. An in-camera session has been arranged at Parliament House to further deliberate on the topic.

The letter response requests comprehensive lists of missing persons and arrested individuals from PTI, inquiring how measures for their release may be implemented without adequate information. Furthermore, PTI’s assertions concerning fatalities during protests necessitate corroborative data.

The government committee intends to deliver the written response to National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq in the imminent future. The Speaker will determine whether to convene the fourth round of discussions upon receipt of the response.

The Supreme Court’s seven-member constitutional bench, presided over by Justice Aminuddin, is currently considering intra-court appeals against civilian trials in military courts. The court asked why the attack on the Army Public School (APS) did not result in a military court trial, even though it involved the Army Act and a criminal conspiracy.

Justice Aminuddin stated, “We acknowledge the presence of military courts, but we need to assess the ‘patch’ that has been applied within the system.” Mohammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, and Jamal Mandokhail were also on the bench.

The session focused on points made by Khawaja Haris, the Ministry of Defense’s attorney, who underlined that military courts are set up under the Army Act for crimes involving the armed services. He made it clear that the topic of debate is the trial of crimes under the Army Act, not civilian trials.

Concerning the intent behind crimes, Justice Mandokhail questioned if military trials would take the defendant’s motivations into account. Regardless of the individual’s intention, Khawaja Haris retorted that a military court would hear instances pertaining to the Army Act.

The 21st Amendment, which permitted military court proceedings, was passed under particular conditions, including the APS attack, the bench pointed out. Even after the horrific attack on an Army school, Justice Mandokhail said military tribunals were impossible without a constitutional amendment, citing the amendment.

In order to bolster his claims on the connection between crime and the Army Act, Khawaja Haris cited other rulings throughout the session. He emphasized that the type of offense determines the trial venue. The bench was eager to learn more about the process’s constitutional ramifications, though, and questioned why some attacks—such as those against military installations—were not subject to military tribunals under the current system.

Justice Mandokhail questioned why, even if the Army Act was in effect at the time of events like the APS assault, constitutional revisions were necessary for terrorism prosecutions to take place in military courts as the session went on. The court has postponed additional considerations until tomorrow, and the case continues to be a critical analysis of civilian justice versus military courts.

Today’s intra-court appeal against civilian military court trials was still pending, and Defense Ministry attorney Khawaja Haris will resume his arguments on Thursday.

The 21st Constitutional Amendment, the tragedy of the Army Public School attack, and the comments made by former Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani were all discussed at the hearing before the Supreme Court’s seven-member constitutional bench.

The presence of military courts is recognized, but the “patch on velvet” needs to be reviewed, said Justice Jamal Mandokhel.

After voting in support of the 21st Constitutional Amendment, Raza Rabbani shed tears, which are now part of history, according to Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi.

Khawaja Haris will continue to offer arguments at the intra-court appeal session tomorrow.

In order to counter terrorism, the 21st Amendment was passed after the APS assault. The bench, led by Justice Ameenuddin, cited the particular circumstances of this amendment.

This constitutional amendment allowed terrorists to be tried in military courts. Haris maintained that criminals implicated in events such as the May 9 assaults are subject to military trials.

The 21st Amendment was made for specific conditions, including the APS attack, where military trials became necessary. Haris emphasized that such trials, even without the amendment, could still take place under the military court system.