AGL40▲ 0 (0.00%)AIRLINK129.06▼ -0.47 (0.00%)BOP6.75▲ 0.07 (0.01%)CNERGY4.49▼ -0.14 (-0.03%)DCL8.55▼ -0.39 (-0.04%)DFML40.82▼ -0.87 (-0.02%)DGKC80.96▼ -2.81 (-0.03%)FCCL32.77▲ 0 (0.00%)FFBL74.43▼ -1.04 (-0.01%)FFL11.74▲ 0.27 (0.02%)HUBC109.58▼ -0.97 (-0.01%)HUMNL13.75▼ -0.81 (-0.06%)KEL5.31▼ -0.08 (-0.01%)KOSM7.72▼ -0.68 (-0.08%)MLCF38.6▼ -1.19 (-0.03%)NBP63.51▲ 3.22 (0.05%)OGDC194.69▼ -4.97 (-0.02%)PAEL25.71▼ -0.94 (-0.04%)PIBTL7.39▼ -0.27 (-0.04%)PPL155.45▼ -2.47 (-0.02%)PRL25.79▼ -0.94 (-0.04%)PTC17.5▼ -0.96 (-0.05%)SEARL78.65▼ -3.79 (-0.05%)TELE7.86▼ -0.45 (-0.05%)TOMCL33.73▼ -0.78 (-0.02%)TPLP8.4▼ -0.66 (-0.07%)TREET16.27▼ -1.2 (-0.07%)TRG58.22▼ -3.1 (-0.05%)UNITY27.49▲ 0.06 (0.00%)WTL1.39▲ 0.01 (0.01%)

State, its agents cannot be allowed to silence voices: IHC

Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
[tta_listen_btn]

Observer Report

Islamabad

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Sunday slammed the Federal Investigation Agency for acting with haste and recklessness that intimidated and harassed a journalist and his family.
The court’s detailed order was issued in the Rana Muhammad Arshad petition — a journalist who had alleged that an FIA investigating officer had raided his house and harassed him and his family.
Arshad’s lawyers had said during previous hearings that because of opinions and views expressed by him on social media, he was being harassed by the FIA’s Cybercrime Wing.
The investigating officer appeared before the court and submitted a written report in which he claimed to have visited the complainant’s house only to verify his address. The high court said that the investigation officer did not provide any evidence of wrongdoing against the suspect.
“He has further stated that, during the course of investigation, no incriminating material whatsoever could be collected against the petitioner,” read the IHC’s order.
The court spoke about the notice issued by the investigating officer to the petitioner, stating that it was vague and had not mentioned the accusations against the journalist.
“In response to the query of this Court, he explained that the petitioner was summoned because the cellular number mentioned in the complaint was registered in his name. He could not give a plausible explanation for sending the undated notice or failure to disclose the purpose for summoning the petitioner,” stated the court.
The court said that the petitioner had claimed he was being harassed due to his critical views on social media against state functionaries. “
“Such an apprehension or fear in the mind of a person who is engaged in the occupation of reporting and dissemination of information to the public not only undermines the independence of the occupation but is intolerable in a society governed under a Constitution,” stated the IHC.

Related Posts

Get Alerts