Journalists Urge SC to Cancel JIT Probing Social Media Campaign Against Judges

Journalist organizations, including the Press Association of the Supreme Court (PAS) and the Islamabad High Court Journalists Association, have jointly filed a petition urging the Supreme Court to invalidate the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) formed by the caretaker federal government to probe the social media campaign against judges, as reported by The News.

The petition, submitted under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, names the Ministry of Interior Secretary and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) as respondents. It seeks the cancellation of the caretaker government’s January 16 notification that established the JIT, as well as any subsequent FIA notices issued based on that notification.

The journalist bodies, represented by Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed, argue that the FIA lacks jurisdiction to investigate the “explicit and malicious campaign against judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan” or “derogatory remarks against the superior judiciary of Pakistan.” They contend that such actions violate Articles 19, 19-A, 175, and 204 of the Constitution, as well as the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016.

Journalists Urge SC to Cancel JIT Probing Social Media Campaign Against Judges

Additionally, the petition challenges Rule 17 of the PECA Investigation Rules 2018 and Section 30 of PECA 2016, which allow the inclusion of intelligence and other government or public sector organizations/agencies in a JIT. The journalist associations argue that these provisions should be invalidated as they infringe upon rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The petition opens with a quote by George Washington, emphasizing the importance of freedom of speech. It questions whether the FIA’s inquiries, appointment of the JIT, and multiple summons under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) regarding vague allegations have a chilling effect on free speech and information rights.

Furthermore, the petition raises concerns about the executive branch encroaching on the judiciary’s discretion to punish speech that scandalizes the court or brings it into contempt, as outlined in Article 204 of the Constitution. The journalist associations argue that such discretion should remain with the judiciary to uphold the doctrine of separation of powers.

The petitioners emphasize that freedom of speech is essential for democracy and serves as a check against abuse of power. They assert that a free, vibrant, and independent media is crucial for a democratic state. They also express concern that the FIA, when enforcing contempt laws under PECA 2016, may deprive journalists of fair hearings or bail, especially when the matter involves the apex court.

In conclusion, the petitioners seek the Supreme Court’s intervention to protect freedom of speech and ensure that the FIA does not overstep its bounds in investigating the anti-judges’ social media campaign. They emphasize that the court’s decision in this matter is of great public interest and has significant political implications.