IHC to resume PECA hearing on Sept 18
Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas will take up the petitions on September 18.
Earlier, Justice Minhas had held a hearing on July 7, during which the arguments had begun but the court did not set the next hearing date at that timewhich has now been announced.
The petitions have been filed by the PFUJ, television anchors, and the Islamabad High Court Journalists Association. In the previous hearing, Dr Yasir Aman, the lawyer for PFUJ, presented arguments and is expected to continue them at the next hearing as well.
The National Assembly on January 23 of this year amended the country's cybercrime law — PECA, 2016 — granting the government expanded powers to regulate and control social media platforms amid protest by journalists and right activists.
Several groups and individuals later filed petitions against the amended law in different high courts of the country including the IHC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
12 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Properties' auction: Bahria Town moves SC against IHC order
ISLAMABAD: M/s Bahria Town (Private) Limited challenged the Islamabad High Court's order, allowing the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to proceed with the auction for its properties, in the Supreme Court. A division bench of IHC, comprising Chief Justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif on August 05, 25 dismissed Bahria Town's petition, through a short-impugned order; 'The injunctive order issued on 15.04.2025 passed in writ petition No. 1368 of 2025 and order dated 04.06.2025 passed in W.P No. 2248 of 2025 are hereby recalled.' M/s Bahria Town (Private) Limited, on Wednesday, through Farooq H Naek, filed an appeal against the IHC order under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. It asked the apex court that a regular bench hear the appeal, as no vires of any law have been challenged or interpretation of any constitutional provision is involved in the case. The petition raised questions whether, in view of the amended proviso to Section 25(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the plea bargain agreement automatically becomes inoperative and unenforceable upon the accused's failure to fulfill the terms and conditions stipulated therein? Whether the NAB authorities can lawfully determine or attribute any liability arising out of a plea bargain agreement in the absence of the accused and without associating the accused in such proceedings? Whether NAB can impose any financial or legal liability upon a person without first preparing and concluding an investigation report in accordance with law? According to the petition, Zain Malik, son-in-law, was accused in three references and investigations of NAB. He later entered into plea bargain agreement with the NAB under Section 25(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The said plea bargain agreement was duly approved by the Accountability Court, Islamabad, vide orders dated 11.08.2020 and 24.08.2020. Upon the request of Zain Malik, the petitioner/Bahria Town (Private) Limited, mortgaged its eight commercial properties (Media House, Rawalpindi; Agricultural Land, Islamabad; Bahria Town Corporate Office-I and II, Rawalpindi; Rubaish Marquee, Islamabad; Arena Cinema, Rawalpindi; Bahria Town International Academy, Rawalpindi; and Safari Club, Rawalpindi) through Memorandum of Title Deeds in favour of NAB as security for the liability of Zain Malik. Out of the eight properties, NAB released two properties (Media House and Agricultural Land) upon payment of two installments by Zain Malik, while six properties still remained mortgaged in favour of the NAB. Zain Malik failed to make further payments in accordance with the terms of the plea bargain agreement which were duly approved by the Accountability Court, Islamabad. As a consequence of this non-compliance, the plea bargain agreement automatically became inoperative with respect to the rights and obligations of the parties. It said that despite amended Section 25(i) of National Accountability (Second Amendment) Act, 2022, the NAB vide letter dated 6-2-2024 called upon Zain Malik to appear in person and justify the reason of delay of payment of outstanding installments in compliance of plea bargain agreement and orders of Accountability Court I, Islamabad. The petitioner being aggrieved by the actions of the NAB, approached the Accountability Court (AC), Islamabad, seeking cancellation and withdrawal of the impugned notices and letter. However, the AC the application on 19-03-25. The petitioner then challenged the Accountability Court's order before the IHC, which on 15-04-25 passed restraining order. However, the IHC on August 5, 25 dismissed the petition through short impugned order. Farooq H Naek contended that the IHC order infringing upon the petitioner's proprietary rights and violating the applicable statutory and constitutional provisions. It shows that it has been passed in a mechanical manner and the Honourable High Court, Islamabad has ignored all the material attached with the writ petition and the relevant law regarding the subject matter, he added. It said that the courts below ignored the fact that the NAB is unlawfully attempting to impose its illegal demand upon the petitioner without any legal justification, while acting beyond its legal authority and disregarding the law and constitutional guarantees under the constitution. It prayed that leave to appeal against the impugned order dated 05.08.2025, passed by IHC may very kindly be granted. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
IHC allows NAB to auction Bahria Town properties
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Tuesday, allowed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to proceed with the auction of Bahria Town properties. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif turned down the petitions filed against the auction of Bahria Town properties. The IHC short order stated; 'Writ Petitions are hereby dismissed. The injunctive orders issued by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2025 passed in W.P No.1368 of 2025 and order dated 04.06.2025 passed in W.P No.2248 of 2025 are hereby recalled.' During the hearing, Farooq H Naik appeared on behalf of Bahria Town, while prosecutor Rafay Maqsood represented the NAB. Naik argued that NAB's auction notice was illegal, deceptive, and issued with malafide intent. He said that Bahria Town was not a party to the plea bargain case and had been wrongfully targeted. He added that Malik Zain, who had pledged Bahria Town properties as collateral, had applied for cancellation of his plea bargain, and that application was still pending. 'If the plea bargain is under judicial scrutiny, NAB cannot lawfully proceed with the auction,' Naik submitted. He contended that NAB's move to attach and auction Bahria Town's properties lacked legal basis, as the company itself had not been declared an accused in any reference related to the £190 million case. The NAB prosecutor rejected Bahria Town's position, stating that Malik Riaz and his son had entered into a plea bargain with NAB but failed to pay the agreed-upon amount. The NAB decided to auction the properties to recover the outstanding amount under Section 33E of the NAB Ordinance, 1999. Maqsood stated that a similar plea had earlier been dismissed by a trial court, after which the petitioners approached the IHC, which issued the stay order on June 12, on the day of the auction. The NAB, subsequently, filed an application to vacate the stay order. The NAB prosecutor pointed out the Lahore High Court's Rawalpindi Bench had directed the petitioners to approach the auction committee, and that attempts to invoke the IHC's stay order before that bench had been rejected. Bahria Town's counsel described the move as a violation of due process, warning it would damage investor confidence and the business environment. The NAB prosecutor said that Bahria Town granted bail and when the accused is an absconder, action would be taken against the guarantor. This application of Bahria Town is not even admissible. After the arguments of the parties were completed, the court had reserved the decision. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
3 days ago
- Business Recorder
Prolonged closure hurting businesses: IHC directs DC to hold talks with BYC protesters
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) directed the Islamabad deputy commissioner (DC) to hold talks with the demonstrators protesting outside the National Press Club (NPC) and ensure the peaceful end of the protest. A single bench of Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar, on Monday, heard the petition filed by an owner of a petrol pump at F-6 who is aggrieved due to continuing protest by Baloch outside the press club. He adopted the stance that protests be managed that roads be opened so that business may not suffer. During the proceeding, the chief justice questioned why is the road blocked? Advocate General Islamabad Ayyaz Shaukat informed the court that members of the Baloch Youth Council (BYC) were leading the protest. When questioned by the Chief Justice about whether permission had been granted for the demonstration, the Advocate General admitted that no such permission was given. He said that they disperse them but they return. The IHC chief justice expressed concerns over the prolonged closure of road by the protestors and asked Deputy Commissioner Irfan Nawaz Memon to negotiate with the protesting people and tell them that they cannot sit here. The bench questioned the administration's approach and emphasised the need for immediate and effective action. Justice Dogar remarked that the measures taken so far are inadequate, adding that 'you are responsible for protecting the property rights of others as well.' The deputy commissioner told the court that an alternative location could be offered to the protesters. In response to it, the chief justice ordered him to engage with the demonstrators and ensure the site is cleared. He also directed to submit a progress report on the next hearing, which is scheduled after two weeks, without failure. Clarifying it, Justice Dogar said that 'when they say 15 days, it does not mean you return after 15 days.' The DC assured the court that action would be taken immediately. The petitioner's counsel urged the court to expedite its directives, stating that local businesses had come to a standstill. In response to it, the chief justice remarked, 'The direction has been given.' Later, the bench deferred hearing of the case for two weeks. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
