During the hearing today, IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq lamented the discrepancies in the inquiry initiated by the investigation agency and the First Information Report (FIR) registered against Toor.

The development comes after Judicial Magistrate Muhammad Shabbir’s court extended the journalist’s physical remand by two days after his arrest in a case of running a campaign against institutions.

It is pertinent to know that Toor is booked for allegedly running a malicious campaign against the judiciary on social media platforms X and YouTube.

The FIR also states that the journalist, who had even gone on a hunger strike against FIA’s arrest, had fueled anti-state activities through social media and he has been booked under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016.

At the onset of today’s hearing, IHC CJ Farooq questioned whether the FIR was registered on the basis of the inquiry for which the suspect was sent a notice in the first place.

“The FIR varies from the allegation in the [summon] notice […] The source report, summon notice and the FIR are all different,” Toor’s lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir replied while praying the court to declare her client’s arrest “illegal”.

Speaking to the FIA’s counsel on the issue of the notice and the FIR against the suspect, the chief justice recalled the defence counsel’s argument from a day earlier regarding the notice lacking any substance whatsoever.

“Yesterday they [the defence] told the court that your notice [comprises of] merely two lines and nothing else”, Justice Farooq said while questioning the FIA’s lawyer whether he is unable to understand the court or simply does not intend to address the matter.

“Special care should be ensured in cases where the judiciary or armed forces are involved”, the judge said adding that such cases must be more transparent than others as one should be able to discern why the suspect is being prosecuted to begin with.

Meanwhile, responding to the court’s question regarding the possible effect on the FIR if the court declares the notice illegal, FIA’s counsel contended that the court could not take suo motu notice in the said matter as the FIR was only registered after the petition was filed in the court.

It is pertinent to know that the caretaker government had constituted a joint investigation team (JIT) to probe the anti-judiciary campaign being run on various digital platforms and social media.

The JIT was tasked with investigating mainly three specific matters: firstly, to ascertain facts behind the malicious social media campaign to malign the image of the honourable judges of the Supreme Court; secondly, to identify and bring the culprits to book under the relevant laws and get challans presented the relevant courts, and finally to recommend measures for the prevention of such incidents in future.

The JIT had then subsequently sent notices to multiple journalists asking them to appear before the body about matters pertaining to the anti-judiciary campaign.