Audio leaks case: SC urged to set aside IHC order in response to pleas of Bushra, Najam

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has been urged to set aside the Islamabad High Court’s order passed in the petitions of former first lady Bushra Bibi and former chief justice Saqib Nisar’s son Mian Najam ul Saqib against their respective audio leaks.

The federal government, on Friday, under Article 185(3) of the constitution filed an appeal against the IHC’s order dated 25-06-24 and cited the federation through the PM’s Office and secretary Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, speaker National Assembly, Special Committee on NA, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority and mobile phone companies.

A single bench of Justice Babar Sattar, on June 25, rejected the additional attorney general’s request to hold in-chamber hearing in the audio leaks case and declared that any action of phone tapping without a legal mechanism was illegal.

It questioned whether the IHC single bench was legally correct and justified to pass the impugned order dated 25-06-2024. It further questioned whether the single bench has not erred in law by exercising suo motu powers while passing the impugned order, which is beyond the pleadings of parties.

An alleged audio conversation of Najam Saqib with his friends regarding managing party ticket for contesting the election of the provincial assembly seat against certain monetary consideration became viral on social media along with electronic media. Upon the alleged audio leaks going viral and the discussion thereon in the National Assembly, the speaker National Assembly took notice of the same and constituted a special committee vide circulation dated 02-05-2023 to audit, inquire and investigate the petitioner (Najam) alleged audio leaks. He then filed a petition before the IHC.

It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the single bench of the IHC in WP No 1805/2023, is illegal, against the law and facts of case. Hence, the same is untenable and liable to be set aside.

The single bench of the IHC has erred in law by giving different directions through the impugned order while going beyond the pleadings of the parties. It was no one case before the IHC for such directions. It is an established law by the superior courts that the High Court does not have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to take a suo motu notice. It cited the cases PLD 2023 SC 236, PLD 2021 SC 571, 2018 SCMR 414, PLD 2014 SC 1, 1982 SCMR 549 and PLD 1971 SC 677.

It submitted that the IHC single bench has exceeded its jurisdiction by taking suo motu notice by constituting a joint committee. Hence, the impugned order is not legally sustainable and thus liable to be interfered by the apex court.

It stated that the impugned order is patently void ab initio, an untenable, misplaced, misdirected, unfounded, erroneous, misconceived, unwarranted, unlawful, illegal, without lawful authority and nullity in the eyes of law and as such the same not sustainable and liable to be interfered with and set aside by the Supreme Court.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024