ISLAMABAD -UNS: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday asked Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan which “public authority or agency” should be held accountable for tapping phones without legal cover.
The court raised the question in a seven-page order issued on a petition filed by Najam Saqib, son of former chief justice Saqib Nisar, against a National Assembly committee tasked with investigating his purported audio leak, wherein a voice said to be his could be heard demanding a “reward” from a PTI leader for securing him the party ticket to contest Punjab elections.
In his petition, Najam had requested the court to stop the proceedings of the parliamentary panel headed by Aslam Bhootani, claiming that the body was formed in violation of the National Assembly rules.
A day earlier, the IHC had taken up the plea and asked, “Who records the audios.” It also sought a response from the government by June 19 and barred the NA committee from taking any action against the ex-CJP’s son.
In a detailed order issued today, Justice Babar Sattar raised multiple questions regarding the entities accountable for surveillance and the regulatory framework governing recording and surveillance activities, specifically inquiring about the legality of such actions.
“To the extent that recording of phone calls is permitted, which public authority or agency is authorised to do so, how is the right of a citizen to liberty and privacy balanced against the interest of the state in recording phone calls or undertaking surveillance and which agency is vested with legal authority to undertake such balancing exercise?” the judge asked.
He also inquired if the Constitution empowered the government for surveilling phone calls or telecommunication between private citizens.
“…If so, the supervisory and regulatory legal regime within which such recording and surveillance can take place?”
Justice Sattar also questioned the mandate of the Parliament in forming committees to look into matters pertaining to private individuals.
“Does the Constitution and the rules framed under it to regulate parliamentary procedure vest in the office of the Speaker of National Assembly the authority to constitute a special committee to investigate actions attributable to a private citizen who is not a member of Parliament or a public officeholder?”
“… Which public authority or agency is to be held liable for such surveillance and encroachment over the right of citizens to liberty and privacy and/or release of illegally recorded private conversations to the public?” it asked.
“Is the Parliament vested with legal authority to inquire into and investigate acts of private citizens who hold no public office or whether assuming such power intrudes into the domain of the executive?” the court inquired.
It also directed the ministries of interior and defence, the Federation through the Prime Minister’s Office and the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority to be made respondents in the case.
The respondents were further instructed to submit point-by-point comments to the court within two weeks from the date of the order.
