The Islamabad High Court Friday dismissed the plea filed by the Intelligence Bureau seeking to withdraw its objection against the bench hearing the audio leaks case.
The plea, filed by IB just days after three other government departments were fined by the court for their respective petitions, was rejected by IHC's Justice Babar Sattar today.
Earlier this week, the court fined three government departments Rs500,000 each while dismissing their separate petitions pertaining to the matter.
The fine imposed on the government department included Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra), Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) and Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), while the court did not fine IB at the time, it summoned its Joint Director General Tariq Mehmood at the next hearing of the case.
Meanwhile, the audio leak case, which involves former chief justice Saqib Nisar's son and Bushra Bibi — wife of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, is being heard by Justice Sattar after the matter surfaced in 2023.
The assistant attorney general informed the court that the IB wants to withdraw its plea raising an objection over Justice Sattar in the bench.
"Your objection petition has already been dismissed. If the dismissal order for the application comes, you will receive it," said Justice Sattar.
The judge hinted at issuing contempt of court to DG IB in light of the notice in the court's dismissal order.
"The order also asked who had given the authority to file the petition," said the IHC judge, informing the AAG that he will be able to respond only after the order is issued.
All the applicants including IB, FIA, Pemra and PTA — in their pleas — argued that the petitions of Bushra Bibi and ex-CJP's son Najamul Saqib should be placed before the bench that had decided an identical matter in 2021, requesting recusal of Justice Sattar to avoid any differing decision.
The departments had sought Justice Sattar's recusal after a letter by six IHC judges, which also includes him, was written to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), complaining about the interference of intelligence agencies in the court's decision.
The judges, on March 25, demanded to convene the judicial convention to consider the matter of alleged interference of intelligence operatives in the judicial functions or "intimidation" of judges in a manner that undermined the independence of the judiciary.
