CJP Bandial has requested that the government investigate Twitter hacker “Indibell.”
AGP
“Look up Indibell on Twitter; do they appear to be based in the US or abroad?” For AGP, CJP is in charge.On Tuesday, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial ordered the appropriate authorities to locate the Twitter account of the hacker known as “Indibell,” whose operator(s) have leaked audio recordings of claimed telephonic conversations with senior jurists.”Look up Indibell on Twitter; do they appear to be based in the US or abroad?” The Chief Justice of Pakistan issued an order to Pakistan’s Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan.The Supreme Court was considering a petition challenging the establishment of a special commission to investigate the leaking of judicial recordings, and the Chief Justice made his comments at that time.
Supreme Court Bar Association
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Abid Shahid Zuberi, SCBA Secretary Muqtedir Akhtar Shabbir, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan, and Advocate Riaz Hanif Rahi all filed petitions with the SC bench, which also includes Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Shahid Waheed.Each petition formally asked the Supreme Court to rule that the creation of the panel was improper.It’s worth noting that the same bench put a hold on the commission’s activities and put the notification that constituted it on hold during the hearing of the petitions on May 28.To ensure a “proper adjudication” of the current case, Zuberi submitted to the bench a number of orders from various high courts in advance of today’s hearing.
Conflict of interest’
judgements from the highest court as well as the Islamabad and Lahore high courts were among those cited.AGP Usman began his opening statements by addressing the “conflict of interest” of the judges who would be considering the petition.The CJP disagreed with the “allegation” and stated that the Supreme Court is a constitutional office with its own authority.He further stated, “A judge cannot be made a party to a contempt petition,” adding that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court cannot be removed from office based on charges alone.It is not possible to limit the authority of the chief justice or a judge in accordance with necessity,” he stated.
chief justice
The chief justice challenged the AGP, “How can there be a discussion on the assumption that two judges, including the chief justice, had personal benefits in the case?” after the AGP claimed that the government had filed objections about the formation of the bench hearing the appeals.He cautioned the administration to stay out of the court’s jurisdiction.We weren’t even consulted before the commission was constituted, he complained.The AGP was then urged to provide evidence that their petition might be heard, and he was told that “objections cannot be raised against judges on mere allegations.”Position of the government
Terms of Reference
Justice Akhtar expressed scepticism about the legality of the government’s decision to make the leaked recordings public.He asked the AGP, “Is the government asserting that the audios are original?” before instructing them to talk about the commission’s Terms of Reference (TORs).After that, he inquired to the AGP about the veracity of the minister’s claim that the recording was leaked by a hacker and made public through a press conference.”Was it related to the interior minister who held a press conference about the audio leaks?” He questioned whether or not the recording should have been released until a full inquiry was conducted.His question was, “Is it legal for a government official to accuse a judge before having all the facts?”
government’s policy
Justice Akhtar challenged the AGP, “Are the government’s policy and ministers’ statements not the same?” when the AGP defended the government by arguing that ministers’ statements could not be attributed to the government.He continued, saying that any expression of a minister’s personal will would be considered a cabinet statement.To which Find Indibell replied, “After everything that has been said in the ministerial press conferences, what is the status of the application?”The CJP followed up by inquiring as to whether or not the government had made any attempts to ascertain where and how the recordings were being made.
