SC seeks reply from JIT on Hussain Nawaz’s leaked photo

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday has sought a reply from the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) after the premier’s son Hussain Nawaz filed a petition against video recording of witnesses during the JIT’s grilling session by also requesting the top court to form a commission to identify the source who leaked his photo, ARY News reported.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Ijaz Afzal Khan, asked JIT head Wajid Zia to submit an explanation on Hussain’s plea against the video recording during the investigation session.

These directions came after a petition filed by Hussain Nawaz earlier today, requesting the top court to form a commission led by either a retired or serving judge to probe the leak of his photo during a grilling session with the probing team at Federal Judicial Academy.

The premier’s son adopted a stance that the leaked photograph was aimed at humiliating him which was sheer violation of his fundamental right to human dignity, guaranteed to him under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petition demanded the apex court to step in the JIT proceedings by directing the team to bring the audio and video recordings to a halt during the interrogation. It also asked for an independent committee – headed by either a retired or serving judge of the top court – to probe into circumstances leading to the leaking of the petitioner’s photo, which went viral on social media, to identify the source behind it.

JIT submits progress report

During hearing today, the JIT head along with other five members submitted a classified progress report before the bench. The probe body has reportedly highlighted problems and hindrances being faced by its members during the investigation.

The bench directed Zia to file a separate application regarding the problems and hurdles faced by the JIT during the investigation.

Reiterating its earlier observation, the bench once again emphasised that the investigation team should complete its work within the given time frame of 60 days.

Later, the court adjourned the hearing till Monday.