ISLAMABAD – The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday issued notices to the parties on a petition moved by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) challenging summons of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) formed to investigate the party’s alleged social media campaign against the state institutions.
Justice Raja Inam Amin Minhas took up the matter and issued notices to the parties in the case and sought a response by April 21.
The petition names the Interior Secretary, the JIT, and the Inspector General (IG) of Islamabad as respondents.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s lawyer requested the court to prevent harassment if the notification is not suspended. The court directed Sheikh Waqas Akram and others to appear before the JIT, stating that since they had challenged the warrants, they should present themselves and submit their response.
During the proceedings before Justice Raja Inam Amin Minhas, the petitioner’s lawyer argued that the notification issued on July 26 had been challenged. He stated that the federal government had formed the JIT under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), with the IG heading it. However, under Section 30, the JIT is illegal, and its formation also contradicts Section 30.
The lawyer further argued that, according to Rule 2, the competent officer for electronic crimes should be the Director of Investigation (D). The court then inquired whether he was claiming a violation of the rules to which the lawyer affirmed that the rules had indeed been violated.
The petitioner’s counsel explained that the JIT was formed to investigate a social media campaign. However, the JIT should be led by an officer from the investigative agency, and the Inspector General of Police cannot head it. The cybercrime investigations fall under the jurisdiction of the FIA and other investigative agencies, and not the police. This is the responsibility of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency. He further argued that there was confusion over the status of the investigative agency, as sometimes it was said to be disbanded and at other times reinstated.
Later, the court issued notices to the respondents and adjourned the hearing until April 21.
