SC excludes IHC from the audio leaks lawsuit proceedings
According to the information, Justice Aminuddin Khan led a two-judge bench that heard the case and included Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
Bushra Bibi, the wife of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, and Najam-ul-Haq, the son of former CJP Saqib Nisar, received notices from the Supreme Court, which also halted the orders of the Islamabad High Court dated May 29 and June 25.
Justice Aminuddin Khan questioned the authenticity of the audio recording and the identity of the person recording the calls throughout the hearing. He was wondering if the Islamabad High Court had made this determination. The investigation is still ongoing, the Additional Attorney General responded.
No one in this country wants to find the truth, according to Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan. The inquiry commission’s procedures had been halted by the Supreme Court, he continued.
The Supreme Court has noted that confirmation of the audio recording’s legitimacy is necessary. The Islamabad High Court was asked if it had given this element of the issue any thought by the court.
The court was told by the Additional Attorney General that the proceedings of the Islamabad High Court were not conclusive and that the court had overreached its authority as per Article 199.
The Islamabad High Court has been informed that it is unable to carry out an inquiry, and the Supreme Court will hear the case again at a later date.
Prior to this, the federal government appealed the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) decision in the Supreme Court (SC) on the purported audio leak case involving Bushra Bibi and the son of former Chief Justice Saqib Nisar.
The appeal named the Ministry of Defense, PTA, and the son of the former Chief Justice as parties.
The government claims that the high court gave relief that was not even asked for and that the IHC’s ruling is against the facts.
Moreover, the plea argues that the high court’s ruling should be overturned since the IHC lacks the jurisdiction to issue a suo motu notice pursuant to Article 199.
The National Assembly Speaker took note and established a commission, according to the federal government, after an alleged audio leak about ticket allocation surfaced.
The son of the former Chief Justice had also filed an IHC challenge to the committee’s summons.
The administration claims that the high court lacks the authority to gather facts and that the IHC’s request for reports from institutions is an abuse of its power.
ALSO READ: IHC requests that PM identify the parties involved in “mass surveillance” in the context of audio leaks.
The IHC ruled that “any form of surveillance” on citizens is unlawful and unconstitutional, and it is important to note that they asked Prime Minister (PM) Shehbaz Sharif to clarify who is “responsible for the mass surveillance.”
Regarding Bushra Bibi and Najamus Saqib’s appeal against the audio leaks, IHC Justice Babar Sattar gave a written ruling.
According to the written ruling, Justice Sattar held PM Shehbaz and cabinet members “collectively and individually” accountable for the mass surveillance, while the federal government was in charge of monitoring four million residents.
The Prime Minister was also mandated by the IHC to provide a report on the surveillance system’s legislative structure in a span of six weeks. It is imperative that the report elucidates whether the surveillance is being conducted in compliance with the law and the constitution.
It further instructed the Prime Minister to clarify “who is in charge of the system that is affecting the privacy of citizens” as well as who is in charge of mass surveillance and the installation of the surveillance system.
Meanwhile, the Chairman of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) and its members received a notice of contempt of court from the IHC, requiring them to respond within six weeks. “The PTA appears to have misinterpreted the surveillance system in the report, according to the court,” the statement continued.