The Islamabad High Court (IHC), led by Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, has sent notices to former army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa, ex-intelligence director Faiz Hamid, and journalists Javed Chaudhry and Shahid Maitla. The notices are in response to a petition filed by Atif Ali, a concerned citizen. Ali’s petition seeks legal action against the mentioned individuals for purportedly violating the Official Secrets Act through news reports highlighting the former military officers’ involvement in politics.
The interview with ex-Gen Bajwa, as claimed by the petitioner, was handled carelessly. Journalists Chaudhry and Maitla published the reports and were criticized for their alleged lack of responsibility. Ali asserts that the details divulged in these interviews breach the Official Secrets Act, potentially stirring mutiny and discord. He has urged the court to instruct the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to register a formal complaint against the ex-army officials and the journalists. Furthermore, he wants the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) to ban the two journalists.
Initially, the IHC registrar’s office had reservations, suggesting that the high court might not be the right venue for such a case. They recommended the petitioner approach pertinent authorities. However, upon review by Chief Justice Farooq, the FIA was directed to act in line with the law. It was conveyed during the hearing that the FIA had not initiated any actions. As a result, notices were issued to all involved parties, including the two journalists and the FIA.
Gen Bajwa’s discussions in the interviews touched on various sensitive subjects, including his stance on PTI Chairman Imran Khan, civil-military dynamics, and other critical issues. Attached to the petition, these interviews allegedly contain distorted facts intended to amplify readership. Ali believes the articles pose significant questions about the military’s conduct and necessitate an inquiry. Labelling the respondents’ actions as a “cognisable offence,” Ali expects them to face repercussions under applicable laws. The court has deferred the hearing to a later date, to be decided by the registrar’s office.
