Imran Khan, the former prime minister, and his spouse are not allowed to criticise the establishment or the judiciary by an accountability court. Serious concerns are raised by this order in addition to orders that limit the media’s capacity to report on these assertions. The public should be informed by the media, and it should provide a forum for a variety of perspectives, including those of those who are accused. The court unintentionally undermines the requirement that justice be perceived to be done when it restricts this duty in an effort to uphold “judicial decorum.” The court’s order that the media not to draw attention to Mr. Khan’s “political or inflammatory” remarks in accordance with Pemra standards is another area in which the fundamental principles of media freedom are under attack. The guidelines’ purported purpose is to stop sensitive topics from being covered by the media. Nonetheless, they can be used as instruments to silence criticism and deny the public access to vital information if they are implemented in a way that successfully protects public institutions from examination. The media protects the public interest and acts as a watchdog in democracies. The basic basis of democracy is undermined when reporters are directed to report on selected parts of court cases only, or worse, to ignore them entirely. Media independence is essential to preserving the checks and balances that hold the powerful accountable; it is not only a right. The limitations imposed on media coverage of Mr. Khan’s case reveal a larger trend of deteriorating media liberties. Every person should be concerned about this issue because it goes against the fundamental tenets of democracy: accountability, openness, and the right to a fair trial. The government and the judiciary ought to reevaluate these restrictions and make sure that Mr. Khan’s trial is held in an open courtroom, just like the trials of his forebears. Justice can only triumph then. Moreover, it is worth investigating why Mr. Khan continues to insist that his trials take place in Adiala Jail rather than in a regular courtroom. Regardless of the security threats involved, prominent leaders—including prime ministers—were all subject to court trials in the past. The state is responsible for providing an undertrial prisoner with security and facilitating their right to a public trial.