ISLAMABAD: The Isla­m­abad High Court (IHC) is likely to rule this week on the legality of in-camera pro­ceedings in the cipher case involving former pri­me minister Imran Khan.

IHC Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb will resume hearing of a petition filed by Mr Khan against the decision of the Special Court (Official Secrets Act) to hold closed-door proceedings of the cipher case at Adiala Jail.

Justice Aurangzeb was heading a division bench that had earlier issued a detailed order, scrapping the cipher trial and linking the open proceedings of the court with transpare­ncy, impartiality and ind­e­p­endence of the judiciary.

In a judgement issued by the IHC on Dec 19, the co­urt had stressed that “pub­lic trial ensures imp­artial administration of justice”.

Click to see more

The judgement explai­ned the reasons for scrapping the earlier round of pro­ceedings of the Special Court (Official Secrets Act) due to lack of transparency and openness and linked the open court proceedings with the independence of the judicial system.

Mr Khan also challenged his de-novo trial in jail and also subsequent development including framing of charge, holding the proceedings in-camera and media censorship.

In the detailed order, the bench noted that the Islamabad administration, on a request of trial court judge, initiated the process to hold proceedings in jail as it informed the interior ministry about a police report that expressed certain apprehensions related to law and order if the trial is conducted in the courtroom.

The law ministry issued a notification for conducting the trial of Mr Khan in jail on the basis of this information.

The court order stated the chief commissioner on Nov 8, re-initiated the process of conducting the proceedings in jail. The interior ministry referred the letter to the law ministry which forwarded a summary to the federal cabinet seeking approval of the same.

The court noted that prior to the issuance of the notification for conducting the trial in jail, the Special Court judge had not passed any order for holding proceedings or trial in jail against which a revision could be preferred.

The court observed: “There is nothing on the record to show that prior to the notifications dated 12.09.2023, 25.09.2023, 03.10.2023, and 13.10.2023, any sanction of the Fed­eral Government (i.e. cabinet) had been obtained through the Dis­trict Magistrate for conducting the proceedings.

The bench noted lapses on the judge’s part and observed he “was expected to exercise vigilance by satisfying himself that all requirements of Section 352 CrPC and Rule 3 of LHC Rules had been fulfilled before he decided to hold court in jail premises”.

The court order cited English judgements and noted that these emphasize that “the open court principle is a hallmark of democratic society and applies to all judicial proceedings. This principle has long been recognised as a cornerstone of the common law.

Public access to courts guarantees integrity of judicial process by demonstrating that justice is administered in a non-arbitrary manner, according to the rule of law“.

Published in Dawn, December 26th, 2023