ISLAMABAD: The federal government disputed the contents of a leaked letter, purportedly penned by Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) Justice Babar Sattar, alleging that security agencies used “intimidatory tactics” in a case pertaining to audio leaks being heard by the high court.
Earlier today, a snippet from a leaked letter allegedly attributed to the high court judge circulated on social media, with the PTI saying it highlighted “interference in audio leak case”.
The snippet stated that in the audio leaks case, the IHC had put on notice the heads of state intelligence agencies and institutions, ministries and media regulators.
“The question before the court is whether there exists a legal regime permitting surveillance of citizens,” said the letter addressed to the IHC chief justice. “At some point during the hearing of the case, I was delivered messages on behalf of top officials in the security establishment asking me to ‘back-off’ from extensive scrutiny of the existence and mode of surveillance.
“I paid no heed to such intimidatory tactics and did not find that such messages created a risk of substantial detriment to the administration of justice. The current malicious campaign’s focus on cases involving PTA (Pakistan Telecommunication Authority) appears to be an intimidatory tactic to influence court proceedings.”
The development comes amid proceedings underway in the IHC on alleged audio leaks and a separate case on contempt proceedings on a social media campaign targeting the judge, as well as suo motu proceedings in the apex court on alleged interference by intelligence agencies in judicial affairs.
Addressing a press conference in Islamabad on the matter, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, without naming Justice Sattar, said the contents of the letter from an IHC judge to IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq had surfaced, saying that it was an “internal communication” of the court.
“The contents of that letter are being reported in such a way and the impression is being given as if there is interference in the IHC and that a message was sent to that judge regarding a specific case, or he understood it this way, or it was sent from such an individual which it should have not.”
