ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) again sought replies from the secretaries’ Ministries of Defence and Interior in a petition of former chief justice Saqib Nisar’s son Mian Najamus Saqib challenging a Special Committee constituted by speaker National Assembly to audit, inquire into, and investigate audio leaks involving him.
A single bench of Justice Babar Sattar heard the petition, wherein, he had already issued the directions to the attorney general for Pakistan to answer the court’s five questions related to the recording of phone calls and whether Parliament is vested with legal authority to inquire into and investigate acts of private citizens.
In his written order, Justice Sattar stated that the court has perused the responses filed by respondents, which do not address the report that was solicited through court’s order dated 31.05.2023.
Therefore, he directed the PM office through secretary to the PM, secretaries Ministry of Interior and Defence to file comprehensive reports “providing information and addressing the questions raised in order dated 31.05.2023 together with an affidavit stating that the information provided is complete and correct within a period of two weeks i.e. 04.09.2023 failing which the three Secretaries will appear in person on the next date of hearing.”
Later, the bench deferred the hearing of the case till September 18 for further proceedings.
Mian Najam moved the IHC through advocates, Sardar Latif Khosa and Shoaib Shaheen and cited the Federation through secretary Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and speaker National Assembly and the chairman of the Special Committee.
The petitioner’s counsel stated that a conversation between two private individuals does not constitute a matter that falls within the domain of Parliament.
He further stated that the Parliament has no authority to inquire and investigate into the matter as even in the event that any action attributed to the petitioner constituted an offence under any law in force, the power of inquiry and investigation regarding the actions of citizens is an executive function.
The counsel contended, “The federal government or the State has no authority or jurisdiction to record private conversations between citizens and undertake their surveillance.”
Justice Sattar had asked the Attorney General to assist the court regarding the questions; whether 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?
Do the Constitution and the rules framed under it to regulate parliamentary procedure vest in the office of the Speaker 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 office holder? and does the Constitution or statutory law empower the Executive, and in the present case the federal government, to record or surveillance phone calls or telecommunication between private citizens, and if so the supervisory and regulatory legal regime within which such recording and surveillance can take place?
The bench had also put question even if the recording of phone calls is permitted, then which public authority or agency is authorised to do so, how is the right of a citizen to liberty and privacy to be 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?
In the event that there is no legal sanction to tap phones, record telecommunication between citizens or undertake surveillance, 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?
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.