Verdict reserved by IHC on Asad Toor's petition against FIA's arrest

A day after Judicial Magistrate Muhammad Shabbir’s court extended journalist Asad Toor's physical remand by two days, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) Thursday reserved its verdict on his petition against alleged harassment and arrest by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in a case of running a campaign against institutions.

Toor has been booked for allegedly running a malicious campaign against the judiciary on social media platforms X, formerly Twitter, and YouTube.

The First Information Report (FIR) also states that the journalist, who had even gone on a hunger strike protesting his arrest by the FIA, had fuelled anti-state activities through social media. He was, therefore, booked under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016.

During the hearing today, IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq lamented the discrepancies in the inquiry initiated by the investigation agency and the FIR registered against Toor.

The judge questioned whether the FIR was registered based on the inquiry for which the suspect was sent a notice in the first place.

"The FIR varies from the allegation in the [summon] notice [...] The source report, summon notice and the FIR are all different," Toor's lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir replied while praying the court to declare her client's arrest "illegal".

Speaking to the FIA's counsel on the issue of the notice and the FIR against the suspect, the chief justice recalled the defence counsel's argument from a day earlier regarding the notice lacking any substance whatsoever.

"Yesterday they [the defence] told the court that your notice [comprises of] merely two lines and nothing else", Justice Farooq said while questioning the FIA's lawyer whether he is unable to understand the court or simply does not intend to address the matter.

"Special care should be ensured in cases where the judiciary or armed forces are involved", the judge said adding that such cases must be more transparent than others as one should be able to discern why the suspect is being prosecuted to begin with.

Meanwhile, responding to the court's question regarding the possible effect on the FIR if the court declares the notice illegal, FIA's counsel contended that the court could not take suo motu notice in the said matter as the FIR was only registered after the petition was filed in the court.

It is pertinent to know that the caretaker government had constituted a joint investigation team (JIT) to probe the anti-judiciary campaign being run on various digital platforms and social media.

The JIT was tasked with investigating mainly three specific matters: firstly, to ascertain facts behind the malicious social media campaign to malign the image of the honourable judges of the Supreme Court; secondly, to identify and bring the culprits to book under the relevant laws and get challans presented the relevant courts, and finally to recommend measures for the prevention of such incidents in future.

The JIT had then subsequently sent notices to multiple journalists asking them to appear before the body about matters pertaining to the anti-judiciary campaign.