ISLAMABAD: Justice Babar Sattar of the Islamabad High Court has said the applications of three federal entities seeking his recusal from audio leaks case were “misconceived” and an attempt to intimidate him.

On Monday, Justice Sattar had slapped a fine of Rs500,000 each on the FIA, PTA and Pemra for filing petitions seeking his recusal over the fact that he was one of the six IHC judges who wrote a letter against alleged meddling of intelligence agencies in judicial affairs.

In a detailed order of Monday’s proceedings, the judge said the document was merely a “confidential intra-institutional correspondence”.

“The Supreme Court had taken cognisance of the matter and has initiated proceedings under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, and it would be inappropriate to address the intent and purpose of the letter any further,” the judge wrote in the order issued on Saturday.

Says IHC judges’ letter about ISI meddling was ‘internal correspondence’

Defending the letter, Justice Sattar said it was a correspondence among the judges.

“It seeks guidance from the Supreme Judicial Council with regard to the appropriate response to incidents of intimidation and harassment faced by members of the judiciary from outside the institution, including, inter alia, operatives of ISI,” he said.

The letter was not “a complaint” and not “meant for public consumption”. Yet, it was “leaked to the media and has attracted public debate”, said the order.

“[The letter’s] content provides no basis to any of the respondents to seek recusal of the presiding judge from hearing a case involving the federal government or any entity falling with the control of the federal government, including investigation and intelligence agencies.”

The order added that the threshold to seek the recusal of a judge was “reasonable apprehension of bias on part of the judge”.

“In view of the content of the letter, no reasonable apprehension can be formed that the signatories of the letter harbor any hostility or animosity toward the federal government or any of the entities controlled by it, including intelligence agencies,” the judge wrote, adding that any person reading the letter would have clouded that the six judges were concerned over the “interference of intelligence agencies and the ISI” in judicial affairs which undermined the independence of the institution.

The judge also referred to the plea taken by the PTA that since AJURIS — a law firm in which Justice Sattar was a partner before being appointed to the IHC in December 2020 — has represented telecom companies in the past, the judge should recuse himself from the case as it also involves those firms.

Justice Sattar said the attorney general for Pakistan — also a past AJURIS partner — informed the court that the firm was not currently representing clients in cases “that had any similarity with or whose subject matter overlapped with the subject matter in the instant cases”.

“He submitted that the ground for recusal raised by PTA was not just legally invalid, but was also based on factually incorrect information.”

“PTA, the telecom regulator, as well as the telecom providers … are all institutional actors, and no facts have been asserted or alleged that the presiding judge has a personal relationship or connection with any one of the parties on the basis of which the presiding judge ought to seek recusal in terms of the Code of Conduct,” said Justice Sattar.

The judge said the aforementioned reasons provided in the recusal applications were “mala fide and frivolous, and, prima facie, part of a collusive scheme to intimidate”.

The recusal applications were “mala fide and frivolous” and “part of a collusive scheme to intimidate”, the judge said in the order.

Each official of the three agencies who authorised these applications would pay a fine of Rs500,000 from their personal expenses to the IHC deputy registrar (accounts).

The judge said that since the additional attorney general and the representatives of FIA and IB failed to satisfy the court, they have been ordered to file reports explaining the legal framework under which they operate.

The director generals of the two agencies have been asked to file affidavits naming officials who authorised the recusal applications.

The court also issued notices to the heads of PTA, FIA and IB to explain “why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them”.

Published in Dawn, May 5th, 2024