SC excludes IHC from case hearings

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday allowed the federal government’s appeals against the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) decisions in the audio leak case, ARY News reported.

According to the details, the case was heard by a two-member bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and also including Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

The Supreme Court stayed the Islamabad High Court's orders of May 29 and June 25 and issued notices to Bushra Bibi, wife of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, and Najam-ul-Haq, son of former CJP Saqib Nisar.

During the hearing, Justice Aminuddin Khan asked whether the Islamabad High Court had ascertained whether the audio recording was authentic and who had recorded the audio calls. The Deputy Attorney General replied that the investigation was still underway.

READ: Audio leaks case: Fed government challenges IHC ruling in Supreme Court

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan noted that no one in this country wants to bring out the truth. He added that the Supreme Court has stayed the proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Supreme Court observed that the authenticity of the audio recording needed to be verified. The court also asked whether the Islamabad High Court had considered this aspect of the case.

The Deputy Attorney General informed the court that the proceedings before the High Court in Islamabad were not completed and that the Supreme Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 199.

The Supreme Court was informed that the Islamabad High Court is unable to conduct an investigation and the case will be retried on a date to be announced later.

Earlier, the federal government had challenged the Islamabad High Court (IHC) verdict in the alleged audio leak case involving Bushra Bibi and the son of former Chief Justice Saqib Nisar before the Supreme Court (SC).

The son of the former Chief Justice, the PTA, the Ministry of Defence and others were named as parties in the appeal.

The government argues that the IHC decision is contrary to the facts and that the Supreme Court has awarded compensation which was not even sought.

The suit further alleges that the IHC has no jurisdiction to issue a notification under Article 199 on its own initiative and, therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision should be declared null and void.

The federal government said the Speaker of the National Assembly had become aware of an alleged audio leak related to ticket distribution and had set up a committee.

The son of the former Chief Justice had also challenged the committee’s summons before the IHC.

The government argues that the IHC's request for reports from institutions is an overreach of its powers and that the Supreme Court cannot conduct fact-finding.

ALSO READ: Audio leaks case: IHC wants PM to reveal actors behind ‘mass surveillance’

It is worth mentioning here that the IHC declared “any form of surveillance” of citizens illegal and unconstitutional and asked Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to explain who was “responsible for mass surveillance”.

IHC Judge Babar Sattar issued a written order against the audio leaks on the application of Bushra Bibi and Najamus Saqib.

In the written order, Justice Sattar said that the federal government was responsible for surveillance of four million citizens and that Prime Minister Shehbaz and the cabinet members were “collectively and individually” responsible for the mass surveillance.

The IHC also asked 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 carried out in accordance with the law and the constitution.

The Prime Minister was also asked to explain who was responsible for installing the surveillance system and mass surveillance and “who controls the system that compromises citizens' privacy”.

Meanwhile, the IHC has also served a contempt of court notice on the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) chairman and its members and asked them to file a reply within six weeks. “The court is of the view that the PTA appears to have misinterpreted the surveillance system in the report,” it added.