Centre given one more month to submit reply in audio leaks case

IHC observes leaking audios without taking state into confidence ‘grave decision’

ISLAMABAD:

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday granted a one-month extension to the federal government to submit its reply in the audio leaks case.

A single-member bench of the capital's high court was hearing a petition filed by Najamus Saqib, the son of former chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) Saqib Nisar.

During the proceedings, Justice Babar Sattar inquired as to how electronic surveillance was being conducted and asked who was carrying it out.

“The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) has denied giving anyone such permission, then how were audios of the Prime Minister Office (PMO), a Supreme Court judge and former chief justice’s family leaked?

“Leaking such audios without taking the state into confidence is a grave decision,” remarked the judge, observing that the PMO report stated that it did not look into the day-to-day affairs of intelligence agencies.

Justice Sattar asked who was the competent authority regarding the audio tapes.

The court summoned the relevant officer of the parliamentary committee and clubbed together the petitions filed by former premier Imran Khan's wife Bushra Bibi and former PM’s aide Zulfi Bukhari against summons by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in connection with the audio leaks.

Read Judges kick off 'open' probe into audio leaks

In a written reply, Raza Rabbani, the judicial assistant, maintained that the court should not look into this matter on its own but send it back to the committee.

He added that after the dissolution of the National Assembly, all orders issued by committees became ineffective. Meanwhile, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan maintained that no probe had been carried out as yet into the audios in question.

“It is not clear yet whether these audios were recorded by state agencies,” he said, asking the court for time to determine who recorded them.

He said that the government could inform the court during in-camera proceedings about intelligence agencies that had the facility to record such audios.

The AGP moved the court to dispose of the petition contending that the petition was inadmissable after parliament was dissolved.

Justice Sattar directed the AGP to speak to the prime minister and the federal cabinet regarding the laws about audio taping. “It cannot be that conversations taking place in judge's chambers or public offices are recorded,” he remarked.

He added that the court will allow the federal government time to submit its reply but the legal ambits of audio taping must be clarified.

“Who is recording audios and under what authority,” he asked, before adjourning the hearing.