ISLAMABAD: Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) Justice Babar Sattar on Monday dismissed pleas filed by the Pa­k­­­istan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra), the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) seeking his recusal from a case pertaining to audio leaks.

Meanwhile, on a similar petition filed by the Intelligence Bureau (IB), Justice Sattar summoned its joint director Tariq Mehmood at the next hearing, the date for is yet to be announced.

The development came as the court heard petitions filed last year by ex-premier Imran Khan’s spouse Bushra Bibi and Najam Saqib, son of former chief justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar, against alleged audio leaks.

Saqib had challenged the inquiry of a parliamentary committee on his alleged audio in which he purportedly sought a bribe while Bushra Bibi had challenged an FIA inquiry based on her alleged conversation with Zulfi Bukhari, a former aide to then-PM Imran, for selling Toshakhana gifts.

In May last year, Justice Sattar had asked the intelligence agencies and PTA to trace the source of the audio leak while Pemra was told not to broadcast the unauthorised and leaked conversation of citizens.

The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) had also submitted its report on the case, saying that it “does not interfere” with the domain of intelligence agencies, “keeps an arm’s length relationship” and expects them “to work under the Constitution and law of the land in the public interest”.

In a subsequent hearing, the PTA had informed the IHC that it did not have the capacity or capability to identify the person who leaked audio recordings on social media.

In December, Bushra Bibi had filed a separate petition against a leaked audio conversation between her and her lawyer Latif Khosa, who had confirmed the authenticity of the audio. The IHC then sought reports from the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) director general, FIA, Pemra and others on the matter while ordering the PTA to conduct an inquiry.

In the next hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan informed the IHC that the government had not permitted any intelligence agency to tap audio conversations.

Last week, Pemra had requested Justice Sattar to recuse himself from hearing the case, contending that another bench that had already dealt with an identical matter may proceed on the petitions in hand. Similar petitions were also filed by the PTA, FIA and the IB.

A day ago, the IHC said that a “malicious campaign” was being run against Justice Sattar on social media. It should be mentioned that he is one of the six IHC judges who last month alleged interference in judicial affairs by the country’s intelligence apparatus.

Today’s hearing
Today, AGP Awan appeared before the court while senior counsel Aitzaz Ahsan was present for the court’s legal assistance.

Justice Sattar imposed fines worth Rs500,000 each on the FIA, PTA and Pemra while dismissing their pleas seeking his recusal. He also hinted at initiating contempt proceedings against the bodies.

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Sattar said he would first hear and decide on the four miscellaneous applications seeking his recusal.

Additional Attorney General (AAG) Munawar Iqbal Duggal informed the court that the FIA had sought bench reformation as six IHC judges, including Justice Babar Sattar, had written the letter alleging intelligence agencies’ meddling in judicial affairs.

“What connection does an ISI matter have with the FIA? How is this letter related to the FIA?” the judge asked.

Asking if the letter was related to intelligence agencies, he directed the AAG to read the relevant excerpts of the letter.

Here, Justice Sattar observed that the high court judges had expressed their support for the claims made by IHC Justice (rtd) Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui and a probe into them.

“The part that you read, is this related to the ISI and not the FIA?” he asked AAG Duggal, to which the latter replied in the affirmative.

Noting that one of the petitions stated that the high court judges had “complained” about intelligence agencies, the judge remarked: “How is this a complaint? Justice (rtd) Shaukat Siddiqui had made allegations. We are supporting them.”

He observed that the IHC judges’ letter was about ISI and not the FIA. “Does the FIA have any connection with fixing hidden cameras in judges’ houses? he asked.

“No, they have no connection,” the AAG replied, adding that he brought up the matter as one of the applications had mentioned the “agencies’ role”.

At this, Justice Sattar wondered: “If the Executive blackmails judges, will it be a conflict of interest for the judges? How would you define conflict of interest?”

Subsequently, the judge dismissed the FIA’s petition against Justice Sattar hearing the case with a fine of Rs500,000.

He again asked if the FIA had any connection with “even a single matter” mentioned in the judges’ letter, to which Duggal replied, “In the retrospective, the FIA does not have any connection.”

“Then how can the FIA file a miscellaneous application [asking me] to not hear the case?” the IHC judge asked.

At this point during the hearing, Justice Sattar summoned an IB official to the rostrum, asking at whose approval the bureau’s application was filed.

AAG Duggal then responded that the IB’s joint director had given the approval for it. Upon asking the official’s name, the AAG replied his name was Tariq Mehmood.