اردو
  • IHC Summons DG IB And DG FIA in audio leaks case

    Islamabad High Court File Photo Islamabad High Court

    The Islamabad High Court on Saturday in an order in audio leaks case summoned DGs of IB and the FIA in personal capacity on February 19.

    Justice Babar Sattar was hearing petitions of Bushra Bibi and former CJP’s son Najam us Saqib pertaining to audio leaks.

    “How Bushra Bibi and Latif Khosa’s audio was recorded,” Justice Babar Sattar questioned.

    “Who leaked the audio, who is account holder,” the bench questioned. “The intelligence bureau (IB) should investigate and submit a detailed report,” Justice Babar Sattar said in written order.

    “A secret agency submitted its report on audio leaks via the ministry of defence,” court said. “The court was told that the secret agency not having capacity to determine the source that released the information on social media,” according to the order.

    “The IB shall determine the social media accounts that illegally leaked the audio”.

    “IB should submit its report within three weeks after inquiry. DG IB shall inform in next hearing, who could conduct surveillance of citizens and if the state of Pakistan has ability to stop illegal surveillance,” the judge asked.

    According to the order, the Attorney General told the court that the federal government didn’t allow any agency to record calls. He said that protection of privacy and rights of all citizens necessary.

    “The FIA sought time to submit its reply. It shall submit report with details of the accounts leaked audios on social media. Director General FIA should also appear in court and brief, how surveillance and recording can be conducted,” the bench said in its order.

    In an earlier hearing of the case, Justice Babar Sattar questioned “If the electronic surveillance is allowed? Who could do it,”. “PTA says it didn’t allow anyone,” the bench observed.

    “The question is, how electronic surveillance is being done and who is doing it,” Justice Sattar asked. “If somebody has been allowed it, then who allowed to whom,” the bench posed question.