Islamabad: On Thursday, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) decided to defer its ruling concerning journalist Asad Toor’s plea, which involves claims of unlawful detention and mistreatment by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).
IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq expresses concern over inconsistencies in the FIR and FIA notice issued to Asad Toor.
The Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court expresses concerns over inconsistencies in the First Information Report (FIR) and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) notice. The lawyer representing a journalist requests the court to declare his arrest as unlawful. Meanwhile, the counsel for FIA disputes the court’s jurisdiction to take up the matter on its own accord (suo motu).
During today’s hearing, IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq expressed concern over the inconsistencies between the inquiry initiated by the investigation agency and the First Information Report (FIR) filed against journalist Toor. This comes after Judicial Magistrate Muhammad Shabbir’s court extended Toor’s physical remand by two days following his arrest in a case involving allegations of running a defamatory campaign against institutions through social media platforms and YouTube.
Toor, who had previously gone on a hunger strike against his arrest by the FIA, has been charged under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 for inciting anti-state activities on social media. At the start of the hearing, IHC CJ Farooq questioned whether the FIR was registered based on the inquiry that led to the suspect receiving a notice in the first place.
Toor’s lawyer, Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir, pointed out the discrepancies between the source report, summon notice, and the FIR, and requested the court to declare her client’s arrest as unlawful.
Regarding the FIA’s notice and the related FIR against the suspect, the chief justice referred to the defense counsel’s statement from the previous day, emphasizing the notice’s insubstantial nature, consisting of merely two lines. Justice Farooq questioned the FIA’s lawyer about his understanding of the court’s expectations and intentions.
The judge emphasized the importance of special care in cases involving the judiciary or armed forces, as these cases should be more transparent than others. This transparency is crucial to ensure that the reasons for prosecuting the suspect are clear to all parties involved.
In response to the court’s query about the potential impact on the FIR if the notice is deemed illegal, the FIA’s counsel argued that the court could not take suo motu notice in this matter, as the FIR was only registered following the submission of the petition to the court.
It is crucial to understand that the caretaker government established a joint investigation team (JIT) to examine the anti-judiciary campaign occurring across various digital platforms and social media.
The primary objectives of this investigation were as follows:
1) To verify the facts behind the defamatory social media campaign targeting the esteemed judges of the Supreme Court.
2) To identify and prosecute the individuals responsible under applicable laws, presenting their cases to the appropriate courts
3) To suggest preventive measures to avoid similar incidents in the future.
Following the formation of the JIT, notices were issued to several journalists, requesting their presence to discuss matters related to the anti-judiciary campaign.
