Supreme Court Challenges Islamabad High Court’s Verdict in Bushra Bibi Audio Leak Case
As per details, a two-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, including Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan heard the case.
The Supreme Court suspended the Islamabad High Court’s orders dated May 29 and June 25 and issued notices to Bushra Bibi, wife of former PM Imran Khan, and Najam-ul-Haq, son of ex-CJP Saqib Nisar.
The top court also approved the federal government’s pleas challenging the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) verdict.
During the hearing, Justice Aminuddin Khan inquired whether the Islamabad High Court had determined if the audio recording was authentic and who was recording the audio calls. The Additional Attorney General replied that the investigation was ongoing.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked that no one in this country wants to uncover the truth. He added that the Supreme Court had stayed the inquiry commission’s proceedings.
The Supreme Court has observed that the audio recording’s authenticity needs to be verified. The court has also inquired whether the Islamabad High Court had considered this aspect of the case.
The Additional Attorney General informed the court that the Islamabad High Court’s proceedings were not final, and the high court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 199.
The Supreme Court has been informed that the Islamabad High Court cannot conduct an investigation, and the matter will be heard again on a date to be announced later.
Earlier, the federal government challenged the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) verdict in the alleged audio leak case involving Bushra Bibi and the son of former Chief Justice Saqib Nisar in the Supreme Court (SC).
The appeal nominated the former Chief Justice’s son, PTA, Ministry of Defense, and others as parties.
The government argues that the IHC’s decision is contrary to facts and that the high court had granted relief that was not even requested.
The plea also contends that the IHC has no authority to take suo motu notice under Article 199, hereby the high court’s decision should be declared null and void.
The federal government stated that when an alleged audio leak involving the distribution of tickets surfaced, the National Assembly Speaker took notice and formed a committee.
The former Chief Justice’s son had also challenged the committee’s summons in the IHC.
The government argues that the IHC’s demand for reports from institutions is an overstepping of its authority and that the high court cannot conduct fact-finding.
It is pertinent to mention here that the IHC declared that ‘any form of surveillance’ on citizens was illegal and unconstitutional, asking Prime Minister (PM) Shehbaz Sharif to explain who is ‘responsible for the mass surveillance.
IHC Justice Babar Sattar issued a written order on the plea of Bushra Bibi, and Najamus Saqib, against the audio leaks.
In the written order, Justice Sattar said that the federal government was responsible for the surveillance of four million citizens and PM Shehbaz and cabinet members are “collectively and individually” responsible for the mass surveillance.
The IHC also ordered the Prime Minister to submit a report on the legal framework of the surveillance system within six weeks. The report must also clarify whether the surveillance is being carried out by the law and the constitution.
It also directed the Prime Minister to explain who is responsible for the installation of the surveillance system and mass surveillance and “who is in charge of the system that is affecting the privacy of citizens”.
Meanwhile, the IHC also issued a contempt of court notice to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) Chairman and its members, directing them to submit a response within six weeks. “The court is of the view that the PTA misinterpreted the surveillance system in the report”, it added.
