Spy Agencies
After a social media post went viral on X (formerly Twitter) alleging that Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb had filed a petition against the country’s premier spy agency, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday declared the claims “baseless.”
The post, made by purported Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Fauzia Siddiqui, who identifies herself as the party’s secretary information in Karachi on her verified X account, asserted that Justice Aurangzeb had “submitted a petition to the top court against the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief after the families of judges received threats from spy agencies.”
This social media claim emerged in the wake of a significant incident on March 25, when six IHC judges wrote a letter to the apex court accusing spy agencies of interfering in judicial affairs.
The judges who lodged the complaints were Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jehangiri, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, and Justice Saman Rifat Imtiaz.
Despite the allegations against the intelligence agencies, Justice Aurangzeb was not among the six jurists who reported any interference or intimidation by intelligence operatives.
In response to Siddiqui’s post, the IHC promptly issued a clarification denying the claims, stating that no such petition was filed by Justice Aurangzeb. The court labeled the tweet as “fake” and its contents as “baseless.”
The IHC judges, in their letter dated March 25, accused the country’s spy agencies of meddling in judicial functions and intimidating judges, which they argued undermined the judiciary’s independence.
The serious nature of these accusations prompted the Supreme Court to take suo motu notice, particularly after more than 300 lawyers from various bar associations urged the SC to address the matter under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
Concurrently, the federal government approved the formation of an inquiry commission led by former Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Tassaduq Hussain Jillani to investigate the judges’ allegations.
However, Jillani recused himself from heading the one-man commission and recommended that the issue be heard by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), the judiciary’s constitutional body. He also suggested that CJP Qazi Faez Isa resolve the issue at the institutional level.
Currently, the matter is being heard by a seven-member bench headed by CJP Isa, which includes Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
This clarification by the IHC aims to dispel the misinformation surrounding Justice Aurangzeb and reinforce the court’s position on maintaining judicial integrity amidst external pressures.
