Audio leaks case: Justice Sattar throws out FIA, PTA, Pemra's recusal pleas

• FIA, PTA, PEMRA fined Rs500,000 each.
• Court orders IB official to appear on next hearing.
• Case pertains to Bushra Bibi, Najamul Saqib audio leak.

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court Monday fined three government departments Rs500,000 each while dismissing their petitions regarding the bench hearing the audio leaks case.

The court also hinted that contempt of court proceedings may also be initiated against the authorities of the said departments which include Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) and Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).

The separate petitions were filed by the three aforementioned departments as well as the Intelligence Bureau, whose Joint Director General Tariq Mehmood has been summoned by the court on the next hearing of the case.

At least four government departments filed separate applications with the IHC in the audio leaks case to request that the matter be placed before the same bench of the court that has already decided a similar issue.

The applicants said that the petitions of Bushra Bibi, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf founder Imran Khan's wife, and former chief justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar's son Najamul Saqib should also be placed before the bench that had decided an identical matter in 2021, requesting recusal of Justice Babar Sattar to avoid any differing decision.

Justice Sattar had been hearing the aforementioned petitions after the matter surfaced in 2023.

In the case being heard by Justice Sattar, the government departments argued in the pleas, that an identical matter was previously decided by Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani in 2021. Therefore, they requested the judge's recusal in the case to avoid a conflicting decision as well as in the interest of justice.

The departments are seeking Justice Sattar's recusal after a letter by six IHC judges, which also includes him, was written to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), complaining about the interference of intelligence agencies in the court's decision.

The judges, on March 25, demanded to convene the judicial convention to consider the matter of alleged interference of intelligence operatives in the judicial functions or "intimidation" of judges in a manner that undermined the independence of the judiciary.

Justice Sattar told Dogal that the purpose of filing miscellaneous pleas to transfer the case to another court is to embarrass the judicial proceedings.

“If the executive threatens the judges and judges starts contempt of court proceedings against them, how is it a conflict of interest?” he asked, adding whether the judge will conduct contempt of court proceedings for personal gain.

Justice Sattar questioned if the court should ignore all the cases related to IB and FIA in that case. “If your argument is accepted, then no case should be heard against the government,” he remarked.

Later during the hearing, the veteran lawyer and judicial assistant Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan said he is happy that the judiciary had decided to take a stand saying “enough is enough”.

He also insisted that the judiciary should have taken a stand even during the delay in elections.

“There is still time for us to stand up and put our house in order. I believe in the supremacy of Parliament and the supremacy of the Constitution,” he said.

When, during the hearing, the senior lawyer referred to the case against the trial of civilians in military courts in the Supreme Court, the court barred him from doing so.

Ahsan also mentioned the audios of Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz and Asif Zardari surfacing in the past.

“This is a matter of public interest and FIA should take action on its own,” the lawyer said.

According to the Benazir Bhutto case, Justice Sattar remarked that spying on anyone is “illegal”.

The judge further questioned: “Can this court just give a declaration and the federation continues to violate it? What will happen if a plea comes tomorrow and the federation says we haven’t done it?”

The court then sought assistance on the aforementioned point at the next hearing, stating that the hearing’s next date will be mentioned in the written order.