Govt forms 3-member judicial commission to probe veracity of audio leaks ‘eroding trust in superior judges’

[ghazi52]

.,.,.

Govt forms 3-member judicial commission to probe veracity of audio leaks ‘eroding trust in superior judges’​

Haseeb Bhatti
May 20, 2023

Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Aamer Farooq (L), senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court Justice Qazi Faez Isa (C) and Balochistan High Court Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan (R).
The government on Saturday constituted a judicial commission comprising three senior judges tasked with probing the veracity of recent audio leaks and “their impact on the independence of judiciary”.

According to a notification issued by the government — a copy of which is available with Dawn.com — the commission will be headed Justice Qazi Faez Isa, senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court, and also comprise Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Aamer Farooq as well as Balochistan High Court Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

Following the notification of its establishment, the government instructed the commission to promptly commence an inquiry and to conclude the investigation within 30 days.

“However, if the commission requires further time, the federal government shall grant it,” the notification added.
The series of audio leaks first began last year when private conversations featuring key government and opposition figures — including Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, PTI Chairman Imran Khan, PML-N Vice President Maryam Nawaz, and others — surfaced on social media.

However, the commission formed has been tasked with probing only the recent round of audio leaks that began this year and either pertain to the judiciary or involve sitting and former judges.

In February, audios allegedly involving a sitting judge of the Supreme Court were leaked, leading to demands from the legal community for an investigation and appropriate measures if the leaks were verified.
The leaked audios were claimed to contain conversations between the judge and prominent politicians as well as specific lawyers. They quickly spread across social media and mainstream media platforms.

In April, another leaked conversation stirred up a storm in the country’s political landscape featuring a conversation between two women, one of whom is said to be the mother-in-law of a top-ranking serving judge of the Supreme Court, while the other is spouse of one of the PTI’s legal advisers — Khawaja Tariq Rahim.

While the identities of the women in question could not be independently verified, the clip — which had been widely circulated on social and mainstream media — evoked a stern reaction from across the political divide, along with calls for a thorough probe.

In the same month, two audios linked to former chief justice Saqib Nisar were leaked. One audio implicated his son, while the former top judge questioned the authenticity of the other audio, which allegedly featured a conversation between him and PTI’s legal adviser Khawaja Tariq Rahim.

According to the government notification, a wide circulation of controversial audios had been “witnessed on the national electronic, print and social media, allegedly regarding the Judiciary and former Chief Justices/Judges, conversation raising serious apprehensions about the independence, impartiality and uprightness of the Chief Justices/Judges of the Superior Courts in the administration of justice.”

It said such audio leaks had “eroded public trust and serious concerns have been raised by the general public regarding independence, impartiality and uprightness of the chief justices/judges of the superior courts”.

Furthermore, the notification highlighted the significance of the judiciary as one of the main pillars under the Constitution. It expressed concern that when the independence of the Judiciary is compromised, it undermines society’s confidence.

The notification stated, “The society’s confidence is deeply affected when the independence of the judiciary is tarnished, as it plays a pivotal role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice for all.”

Under the terms of reference in the notification, the government mentioned each of the aforementioned audio leaks.

The commission is entrusted with the responsibility of investigating whether any violations have occurred in relation to “the administration of justice, the independence of the judiciary, the right to a fair trial, and the equality of citizens”.

“If the stated audios are fake or fabricated, to inquire into and fix responsibility with regards, as to who is making these and recommend action to be taken in this regard; and any matter ancillary and incidental thereto or which the Commission deems fit to inquire into it in the interest of justice,” it added.

The government said the commission will have “all the powers that are granted to it under Pakistani Commissions of the Inquiry Act 2017” while directing executive authorities in the federation and the provinces to act in aid of the commission in discharge of its functions and to comply with any of its directions.

Govt forms 3-member judicial commission to probe veracity of audio leaks ‘eroding trust in superior judges’

Supreme Court's Justice Qazi Faez Isa to head the body, which also has Islamabad and Balochistan high courts' top judges.

www.dawn.com

 

[HAIDER]

New practice match for Faiz Isa and Aamir Farooq. See who they hold guilty of audio leaks.
Govt and establishment leaks audio and govt bench wants to investigate audio leaks and govt lawyers will defend audio leaks ................lollllllllllll......what a joke.

 

[Olympus81]

Shouldn’t they be focusing on suo moto on the Government for failing to hold elections within 90 days?

Oh well.

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,.

Judicial commission tasked with probing audio leaks to make proceedings public​

Haseeb Bhatti
May 22, 2023

A three-member judicial commission, formed last week to probe audio clips leaked on social media over the last few months, announced on Monday that its proceedings would be made public as PTI Chairman Imran Khan filed a plea in the top court against the body.

The commission, headed by Justice Qazi Faez Isa, was formed on May 20 under Section 3 of the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act 2017 and is required to conclude the task within a month.

Balochistan High Court Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Aamer Farooq are also included in the commission which will have “all the power to fix responsibility against the delinquents for their alleged role behind phone tapping and could exercise authority to constitute special teams consisting of experts, or form an international team and seek international cooperation or exercise powers” under the Criminal Code of Procedure.

Earlier today, the commission held its inaugural meeting at the Supreme Court’s courtroom no.7. Justice Isa sought the complete names and addresses of all those involved in the audio leaks.

He emphasised that the commission’s sole objective was to gather factual information and not to take punitive action against anyone. He contended that the commission should not be mistaken for the Supreme Judicial Council, adding that all proceedings would take place within the top court’s premises in Islamabad.

Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan apprised the commission that it had been established under the Inquiry Commission Act.

“Should any witness or party request in-camera proceedings, appropriate orders will be issued,” Justice Isa said. “There is a possibility that we may need to visit Lahore to record the statements of a few elderly women.”

He said that the selection of the commission’s secretary would be finalised today and assured that efforts would be made to conduct proceedings in accordance with the body’s mandate.

He stated that the commission would not initiate action against any judge, reiterating that its purpose was solely to establish facts. “The jurisdiction of the Supreme Judicial Council will not be interfered with,” he said.

Justice Isa added that the commission possessed the authority to issue summons to individuals who were not cooperating with the probe. However, he said that the commission would give preference to issuing notices rather than issuing summons.

Moreover, he stated that advertisements should be published in English and Urdu newspapers in order to gather information from the public.

Justice Isa further said: “The Punjab Forensic Agency can be consulted to verify the authenticity of the audio recordings. If someone says that the voice in the audio leak was either not theirs or had been tampered with, then verification should be conducted beforehand.”

Justice Isa emphasised the need for a representative from the forensic agency to be present during the commission’s proceedings. This would enable immediate verification in case an individual denied their involvement, he added.

The commission head further stated that arrangements should be made for playing the audio recordings in question during the proceedings.

Imran files plea against judicial commission in SC​

Meanwhile, PTI chief Imran Khan filed a petition in the top court against the judicial commission. The petition, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, named the Federation of Pakistan through the cabinet secretary, the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Law and Justice as respondents in the case.

The petition questioned whether the federal or provincial government could requisition or select a judge from a superior court to sit in any commission/judicial commission without “prior sanction and approval of the concerned chief justice”.

It further noted that the top court had declared any telephone tapping to be against fundamental rights and asked whether a commission could go into the details of alleged phone tapping. It further asked under what authority conversations could be tapped and the consequences of doing so.

The petition said that the “self-styled” terms of reference framed by the government were politically motivated and aimed at “effecting the independence of [the] judiciary” and were an “outright” effort to circumvent and jeopardise the independence of the judicator and circumvent the enforcement of different laws.

The petition called on the court to declare the notification regarding the formation of the court to be “ultravires” and for a judicial commission to be constituted in light of the top court’s judgement regarding phone tapping to meet the interest of justice.

The commission​

According to an SRO issued on May 19, 2023, the controversial audio leaks regarding judiciary and former chief justices raised serious apprehensions about the independence, impartiality and uprightness of CJPs and judges of the superior courts in the administration of justice.

“Such audio leaks have eroded public trust besides serious concerns have been raised by the general public regarding the independence, impartiality and uprightness of the CJPs and judges of the superior courts,” the notification said, adding that judiciary was one of the main pillars under the Constitution and the society’s confidence was shattered when the independence of judiciary was tarnished.

“Therefore it is imperative to [hold] inquiry into the authenticity, correctness and veracity of these audio leaks to restore not just the credibility of the judiciary but also the public trust and confidence in the judiciary in the larger public interest, as a matter of definite public importance,” explained the SRO.

In response to a question, an insider told Dawn that Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial was not consulted before the constitution of the commission — a common practice — as some of the leaks reportedly concerned his family members. Therefore, the CJP was “conflicted”; this was the reason he was not “requested to suggest names of judges to become members of the commission”.

According to the ToR, the commission will probe the authenticity of the audio leaks purportedly concerning the judiciary, a call between ex-CM Parvez Elahi and a lawyer regarding a Supreme Court judge; between Mr Elahi and lawyer Abid Zuberi regarding fixation of some cases before a particular SC bench; between Mr Elahi and an SC judge; between ex-CJP Saqib Nisar and lawyer Khawaja Tariq Rahim; between lawyer Tariq Rahim and journalist Abdul Qayyum Siddiqui on the outcome of a case pertaining to Imran Khan’s arrest on May 9; between Mr Khan and his party member about their links in the SC; between the mother-in-law of a top judge and wife of a lawyer regarding cases in SC; between the son of ex-CJP and his friend discussing the role of the ex-CJP in the award of the election ticket for a political party.

The commission will also inquire into the correctness of the allegations surfacing on print and electronic media and social media allegedly regarding the son-in-law (Ali Afzal Sahi) of the Lahore High Court CJ, allegedly influencing judicial proceedings before the LHC.

The commission will also determine violation, if any, of integrity or the process of administration of justice, independence of the judiciary, right to fair trial and equality of citizens, to determine the liability incurred by any or all persons named in the alleged audio leaks against or any other person or public office holders including under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 or any other law, to determine as to whether any disciplinary proceedings are attracted.

The commission will also be empowered to fix the responsibility of any person or public office holder aiding and abetting by any act in violation of the laws of Pakistan so determined, to recommend any necessary legal action by any agency, department or person etc. If these audio leaks proved to be fake or fabricated, the commission will inquire into and fix responsibility with regards to who is making these and recommend action to be taken in this regard, it added.

According to the TORs, it will be the duty of all executive authorities in the federal [government] and the provinces to aid the commission and comply with any of its directions.

The commission will be entitled to establish a secretariat and appoint a secretary for the inquiry at the cost of the federal government whereas the attorney general for Pakistan will assist the commission by providing all documents and material required by it.

The commission will initiate the inquiry immediately after the notification of its constitution and will conclude the investigation and submit its report to the federal government within 30 days which can be extended.

 

[RoadRunner401]

I have full trust that these 3 Nawaz shrief employees will restore the faith of people in kangaroo courts.

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,,.

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday asked the government to inform it about the elements behind recording audios of conversations.

The court issued the directives while hearing a petition filed by Najam Saqib, the son of ex-CJP Saqib Nisar, against a National Assembly committee tasked with investigating his purported audio leak, wherein a voice said to be his could be heard demanding a “reward” from a PTI leader for securing him the party ticket to contest Punjab elections.

“Who records the audios,” Justice Babar Sattar asked as the IHC took up the case. The court sought a response from the government by June 19 and also barred the NA committee from taking any action against the ex-CJP’s son.

In his petition, Najam had requested the court to stop the proceedings of the parliamentary panel headed by Aslam Bhootani as the body was formed in violation of the National Assembly rules.

He also claimed that the committee did not summon him but the secretary of the committee still asked him to appear before the panel.

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Sattar inquired about the powers under which the committee had issued a notice. “Is this a special committee?” he asked.

Najam’s lawyer, Sardar Latif Khosa, said that the special committee would follow the same rules as those for regular committees.

“You will have to make the relevant ministry a part of the case,” Justice Sattar said. Khosa, however, responded by saying that there was no relevant ministry in this case but that they would do so.

The lawyer argued that their petition had stated that the NA speaker and the assembly did not have the jurisdiction to probe “private matters”.

“We have not challenged the matter that is currently being heard by the Supreme Court,” he said, referring to the pleas against the formation of a judicial commission formed to probe recent audio leaks.

He underlined that the audio in question was a private phone call between two private individuals and should not be subject to scrutiny by parliament.

The court then suspended the summons issued to Najam by the committee and asked the government to submit a reply in the case by June 19.

The petition
Najam had also challenged the “legality and validity” of the National Assembly speaker’s decision to form the special committee to “audit, inquire and investigate” his alleged audio clip.

“Under the garb of these audio leaks, a campaign has been launched against the petitioner and his father that some kind of gratification has been obtained by Abuzar Chaddhar for the said ticket,” he said.

While he conceded that his father played a role in the award of a PTI ticket to Chaddhar, the petition, however, stated that Chaddhar explored other avenues as well to secure the party ticket.

Najam said, “the petitioner is very clear in his mind that Abuzar Chaddhar was given the ticker on the basis of positive decision taken in the appeal on merit”.

According to the petition, “The audio leak is a result of illegal surveillance of the petitioner’s privacy which can neither be disseminated nor be used for incriminating the petitioner”. Citing its evidential value, the petition said “any document or audio leak cannot be used in any trial or inquiry” unless it is clear that who recorded it or for what purpose.

Alleged audio
In the audio in question, a voice purported to be that of Najam can be heard saying to the person on the other end that his father had worked very hard to get the job done and the caller on the other side, said to be PTI ticket hopeful Abuzar Chaddhar, can be heard saying he would come to meet Najam’s father after submitting the ticket.

In the clip, the voice said to be Najam’s can also be heard asking Chaddhar to meet his father the same day and, in conversation with another caller — identified as Mian Uzair — asking for “not only delivery of the goods, don’t take less than 120”.

Chaddhar was granted a PTI ticket in the second phase when party chairman Imran Khan reviewed and changed his earlier decision for 22 seats.

In the audio, a voice purported to be Chaddhar’s can be heard as saying that “your efforts have paid off” and he would come straight to meet him [ex-CJP] after submitting the ticket [with the ECP] before 12 noon.

According to Geo News, the former CJP confirmed that the audio was of his son’s but that the facts had been “doctored”.

 

[Olympus81]

I am surprised they are still working.

The SC has become a lame duck institution. Best to ignore anything coming out of it.

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,.,

‘Which agency will be held liable for tapping phones without legal cover?’ asks IHC​

Umer Burney
June 1, 2023

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday asked Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan which “public authority or agency” should be held accountable for tapping phones without legal cover.

The court raised the question in a seven-page order issued on a petition filed by Najam Saqib, son of former chief justice Saqib Nisar, against a National Assembly committee tasked with investigating his purported audio leak, wherein a voice said to be his could be heard demanding a “reward” from a PTI leader for securing him the party ticket to contest Punjab elections.

In his petition, Najam had requested the court to stop the proceedings of the parliamentary panel headed by Aslam Bhootani, claiming that the body was formed in violation of the National Assembly rules.

A day earlier, the IHC had taken up the plea and asked, “Who records the audios.” It also sought a response from the government by June 19 and barred the NA committee from taking any action against the ex-CJP’s son.

In a detailed order issued today, Justice Babar Sattar raised multiple questions regarding the entities accountable for surveillance and the regulatory framework governing recording and surveillance activities, specifically inquiring about the legality of such actions.

“To the extent that recording of phone calls is permitted, which public authority or agency is authorised to do so, how is the right of a citizen to liberty and privacy balanced against the interest of the state in recording phone calls or undertaking surveillance and which agency is vested with legal authority to undertake such balancing exercise?” the judge asked.

He also inquired if the Constitution empowered the government for surveilling phone calls or telecommunication between private citizens.

“…If so, the supervisory and regulatory legal regime within which such recording and surveillance can take place?”

Justice Sattar also questioned the mandate of the Parliament in forming committees to look into matters pertaining to private individuals.

“Does the Constitution and the rules framed under it to regulate parliamentary procedure vest in the office of the Speaker of National Assembly the authority to constitute a special committee to investigate actions attributable to a private citizen who is not a member of Parliament or a public officeholder?”

“… Which public authority or agency is to be held liable for such surveillance and encroachment over the right of citizens to liberty and privacy and/or release of illegally recorded private conversations to the public?” it asked.

“Is the Parliament vested with legal authority to inquire into and investigate acts of private citizens who hold no public office or whether assuming such power intrudes into the domain of the executive?” the court inquired.

It also directed the ministries of interior and defence, the Federation through the Prime Minister’s Office and the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority to be made respondents in the case.

The respondents were further instructed to submit point-by-point comments to the court within two weeks from the date of the order.

 

[Olympus81]

The courts are as good as dead.

They are irrelevant due to their own misdeeds.

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,.,

Has govt used all its resources to trace those behind audio leaks, asks CJP​

Haseeb Bhatti
June 6, 2023

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Tuesday asked if the government had utilised its resources to trace those behind recording and leaking audios of conversations.

He passed these remarks as a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) resumed hearing pleas challenging the formation of a judicial commission led by Justice Qazi Faez Isa to probe audio leaks.

The five-judge bench, led by CJP Bandial, also comprised Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed.

“How and where are the audio leaks emerging from? Who is behind this?” Justice Bandial asked as the apex court took up a set of four petitions challenging the constitution of the audio leaks commission.

The petitions were moved by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Abid Zuberi, SCBA Secretary Muqtedir Akhtar Shabbir, PTI Chairman Imran Khan, and Advocate Riaz Hanif Rahi. All of the pleas have requested the court to declare the constitution of the audio commission illegal.

The federal coalition had formed the commission on May 20 under Section 3 of the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act 2017. Led by senior puisne judge Justice Isa, the commission also comprises Balochistan High Court Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Aamer Farooq.

On May 28, the top court restrained the panel from going ahead with its task. The verdict was issued by the five-member bench hearing the case.

Subsequently, the government-appointed commission decided to put its proceedings on hold until the SC decided the petitions.

Last week, both the commission and the government had objected to SC proceedings.

Justice Akhtar takes exception to Sanaullah’s presser on audio leak allegedly featuring top judge’s family​

During today’s hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan read out the commission’s terms of reference (TORs).

“One of the audio leaks is related to the CJP’s mother-in-law,” he pointed out.

At that, Justice Akhtar asked if the case being heard at the moment concerned the veracity of the audio leaks.

Awan replied that the government had only formed a commission at this point and its purpose was to determine the authenticity of the leaks.

“Is the federal government not aware of whether the audio leaks are authentic or not?” Justice Akhtar asked.

“Senior cabinet members even held press conferences on the leaks […] is it not true that the interior minister held a press conference?

“Some audios were even played in the press conference,” the judge noted. “Is it lawful for someone, who doesn’t know about the truth of the audio leaks, to raise objections to the bench?”

Justice Akhtar further stated that he was inquiring about the maintainability of the AGP’s appeal seeking the reconstitution of the bench.

“Why did the interior minister hold the press conference? Can such carelessness be shown?” he went on to ask. “After such a statement, the minister should have been removed or resigned.”

For his part, Awan asked if a minister’s statement could be considered the government’s stance on the matter. “It is not in my knowledge if someone had held a press conference,” he said.

However, Justice Akhtar asserted that the federal cabinet should have shown “collective responsibility” on such an important issue.

“A minister talking about tea is different, but here a statement was given on an important issue,” he said.

At that, the AGP asked the court to see if the interior minister’s statement was issued before May 19 or after.

“Wow, what justice with the judiciary,” the CJP quipped. “First judges were ridiculed through the audios and then it is being said that these leaks will be investigated.”

Justice Akhtar also remarked, “This is an easy way to remove any judge from a bench […] construct an audio [which includes] their name.”

He then contended that there were legal reasons behind judges recusing themselves from benches. “This option is not available for anyone to come and say that this judge can’t hear this case.”

Who planted audio leaks, asks CJP Bandial​

At one point during the hearing, CJP Bandial noted that the post of the chief justice was “constitutional”.

“No one can assume the charge of CJP on the basis of an assumption. In this case, the chief justice was available but wasn’t informed about the formation of the [audio leaks] commission,” the top judge remarked.

“Present your arguments on these points,” he said and directed Awan to understand the law before reading out previous judgments issued by the court.

Here, the AGP said he wanted to first present arguments on the constitution of the bench.

“Are you heading towards the point that three of us judges are controversial?” Justice Bandial asked. “If you go towards that, you will have to explain the basis on which you assumed that there is conflict among the three of us?”

“I want you to focus on the more important issue instead of others,” he remarked, noting that another pressing matter was the freedom of the judiciary.

The CJP also inquired about those responsible for the audio leaks. “The question is who planted the audio leaks? Has the government tried to find out who is behind this?” he asked.

He also said that the Twitter accounts involved in leaking the audios should be investigated.

Awan replied that the government was looking into these questions through the commission. “How the calls were recorded and all such queries will be reviewed by the commission,” he said.

Awan further maintained that the matter was in its initial stages currently, adding that as per the federal cabinet, the recordings were “alleged audios”.

“Only this statement should be looked at,” he said, highlighting that apart from the cabinet, statements of any ministers should be viewed in a personal capacity.

“If the defence minister gives a statement, should that not be seen as the government’s stance too?” Justice Akhtar asked.

“If a matter turns out to be relevant to all the judges of the Supreme Court, then this theory can be applied as the doctrine of necessity,” the AGP replied.

At one point during the hearing, Justice Akhtar recalled that no objections were raised to the bench hearing the Benazir Bhutto case.

“The phones of four out of seven judges hearing the case were tapped. Did the judges, whose calls were tapped, not take the right decision in that case?” he asked.

Awan responded, “The government’s case is not regarding bias but the conflict of interest.”

Meanwhile, Justice Bandial asked if the government’s objection was related only to the judiciary proceedings or also to the execution of the court’s administrative affairs.

The AGP argued that a person could not be a judge of their own cause, assuring the bench that the government did not have any ill-intention in the matter. “Changes in the bench will not affect the right of the petitioners who approached the court,” he added.

Awan subsequently requested the court to review the appeal regarding the re-constitution of the bench and concluded his arguments.

Conspiracies hatched to divide judiciary, says SCBA lawyer​

Presenting his arguments, SCBA lawyer Shoaib Shaheen said, “The audio leaks were considered to be authentic and it was said that the freedom of the judiciary had been affected.”

He argued that the TORs of the commission did not mention those involved in tapping phone calls. “All the audios emerged after the suo motu of the Punjab elections,” the lawyer claimed.

“Who recorded the audios? All the audios were brought forth through one hacker.”

Shaheen further stated that the federal government was a respondent in the Punjab elections case and questioned how it could then form the audio leaks commission. “It would have been fair if the TORs mentioned anything about the recorder.”

The lawyer highlighted that the court had a constitutional matter in front of it. “Here the question is about the executives interfering in matters of the judiciary,” he said, adding that the bench hearing the case had to come up with an interpretation and not give a verdict in favour of or against anyone.

Shaheen further asked, “Should we accept the audios without any investigation? This will be a very easy way of blackmailing and fake audios will be made by anyone.”

This court, he continued, had only issued an order to hold elections. “Immediately after it, audios started surfacing and what not was said on talk shows,” the lawyer said.

“Where was Pemra (Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority) amid this? Conspiracies were hatched to divide the judiciary.

“The judiciary’s freedom is very important … people are looking towards the courts,” he said.

Without taking any names, Shaheen contended that an 82-year-old was “picked up” on the pretext of people’s political views. “Can the executive interfere in the judiciary this way?”

As the SCBA lawyer concluded his arguments, AGP Awan came to the rostrum and said that the government’s plea regarding the reconstitution of the bench was not related to bias but the conflict of interest. He requested the court to overlook Shaheen’s arguments in this regard.

“We will think about it,” the CJP replied. He appreciated the arguments presented by Awan and Shaheen, saying that the court’s order restraining the audio leaks panel from going ahead with its task was still in place.

Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned indefinitely with Justice Bandial saying that the court would ponder upon its decision regarding the government’s plea.

Objections to the bench​

Last week, the government had filed an appeal in the apex court seeking the reconstitution of the bench hearing the case. The government asked CJP Bandial, Justice Ahsan, and Justice Akhtar to distance themselves from the bench since “rules of natural justice” demanded that the “adjudicator should be impartial”.

At the last hearing, the commission had also had objected to the proceedings, saying that they did not conform with the requirements of a newly-passed law, the Supreme Court (Practice & Procedure) Act 2023, the implementation of which was stayed by the top court.

The commission, in its reply moved through the secretary, highlighted that the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 required that every appeal or case before the top court should be heard by a bench formed by the committee of judges comprising the chief justice and two most-senior judges of the apex court.

Since the petitions challenging the audio leaks commission were not fixed before such a bench, these petitions couldn’t be heard until the committee determined which bench should hear them, it said.

In a 12-page statement, the commission assured the top court that it had no interest other than undertaking the assignment given to it and to do so strictly according to the Constitution and the law.

It also highlighted that the oath taken by the country’s chief justice and other judges of the superior courts required them to act as per the Constitution and to abide by the code of conduct issued by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), which required not allowing personal interest to influence official conduct or decisions.

The statement went on to highlight that one of the audio recordings allegedly pertained to CJP’s mother-in-law; besides, Justice Akhtar might also have been mentioned in the same recording. Another audio recording referred to fixing a case before a particular bench headed by Justice Ahsan.

Additional documents filed​

Meanwhile, the SCBA president on Monday furnished a number of orders of different high courts with a request that these documents be considered for “proper adjudication” of the present case.

In the fresh application, Zuberi through his counsel Shoaib Shaheen furnished an order by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) issued on Dec 22, 2021, in which the court had held that no news channel has the right to air or broadcast any audio or video clip which has not been directly recorded by the channel or journalist themselves without prior permission of the subject of the audio or video clip and that “spy information” should not be treated as news item, especially when it affects right to privacy.

Likewise, another document contained a Supreme Court judgement passed on April 5, 2022, to bring it on record that the apex court had refused to entertain an appeal against the aforementioned IHC order.

Similarly, the petitioner also furnished another IHC order passed on May 31, 2023, in which the court had suspended the summons issued by a special committee constituted by the National Assembly speaker to audit, inquire and investigate audio leaks allegedly involving Najam Saqib, son of ex-CJP Saqib Nisar.

In the order, Justice Babar Sattar had appointed Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, Makhdoom Ali Khan, Mian Raza Rabbani, and Mohsin Shahnawaz Ranjha as amici to assist the court. The high court had also wondered about any legal framework for recording the telephonic conversations between citizens. The court had also highlighted the need of identifying the legal mechanism for the grant of permission authorising the recording of telephone conversations between citizens and the safeguards adopted to ensure that to the extent that any phone calls were permitted by law to be recorded their confidentiality was preserved and any such recording was not leaked or used for extraneous purposes.

One of the documents furnished by the petitioner before the Supreme Court was a Lahore High Court ruling passed on June 2, 2023, wherein the court held that any audio or video in the absence of its source cannot be taken as a piece of evidence.