Pakistan batter Mohammad Rizwan has filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, formally contesting the summons he received from the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency.
The petition, submitted on Monday, September 14, raises two central objections: that no specific allegation has been made against him, and that the NCCIA lacks the jurisdiction to compel his appearance in this matter.
The legal move follows a sequence of events that began after Pakistan’s Test series defeat in England, where the side lost all three matches. In the aftermath, Rizwan and fellow batter Imam-ul-Haq were called in for questioning by the NCCIA. Both cricketers attended the agency’s Lahore office last Thursday and were handed detailed questionnaires to fill out.
Rizwan had complied with the initial summons by appearing in person, but he has now drawn a line at the investigation’s broader scope. His petition to the High Court signals a formal legal challenge rather than continued cooperation with the process. The court is yet to announce a date for hearing the petition, and no specific allegations against Rizwan have been made public.
What did the NCCIA questionnaire cover?
The questionnaires given to Rizwan and Imam are understood to have covered a wide range of subjects, including the players’ travel records, financial background, and aspects of their personal and professional conduct. The scope of the inquiry extended well beyond on-field matters, prompting concern from at least one of the players about the legitimacy of the process.
Imam is reported to have submitted his completed responses via an intermediary, meeting the September 15 deadline set by the agency. Rizwan chose a different course, opting to challenge the investigation through the courts rather than answer questions he considers to be outside the NCCIA’s lawful remit.
What is the PCB’s position on the inquiry?
The Pakistan Cricket Board has acknowledged the situation arising from the England tour and has taken its own steps in parallel with the NCCIA’s proceedings. The board’s response has focused on internal processes rather than the agency’s investigation, and the two proceedings appear to be running independently of each other.
The PCB said it had “initiated an internal disciplinary inquiry following media reports concerning discipline and conduct, which are currently being reviewed internally.” It is not clear from the available evidence whether the NCCIA inquiry and the PCB’s internal disciplinary process are formally linked.
Rizwan’s High Court petition now introduces a third dimension, a legal one, to what began as an administrative summons in the wake of the England series. The inquiry is described as being “conducted under PCB regulations”, though the precise scope of that framework in relation to the NCCIA’s authority remains a matter the court will now be asked to examine.