SC bench questions legality: ‘Phone tapping can only be authorised by a judge’

ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court after raising concerns over existing laws questioned the legality of phone tapping in the country.

A seven-judge bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Mussarat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Shahid Bilal, on Wednesday, heard multiple cases.

The bench issued notices to the advocate generals of all the provinces and the Islamabad Capital Territory.

At the outset of the proceeding, Justice Mazhar inquired whether any specific legislation had been enacted regarding phone tapping.

The Additional Attorney General (AAG) responded that a law had been in place since 2013. He informed that according to the law, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and IB are notified. The procedure for phone tapping is in the law, and judicial supervision is also in the law, he added.

Justice Mazhar remarked that, according to the law, phone tapping can only be authorised by a judge, and questioned whether any judge had been notified for this purpose.

The AAG stated that he was unaware of the judge’s nomination for this matter.

Justice Mandokhel observed that the law regarding phone tapping is ambiguous. He said this case could have significant implications for several pending cases, adding that the matter had originated from the chief justice’s chamber. He questioned what actions the chief justice would take in this situation.

Justice Amin remarked that the focus should not be on reports or the law itself, but rather on the outcomes.

The Advocate on Record (AOR) informed that he could not make contact with the petitioner – Major Shabbir, adding that his lawyer also passed away last year.

In July, the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication authorised the country’s spy agency, the ISI, to intercept and trace calls in the “interest of national security”.

The ministry’s notification said that the authorisation was granted to the ISI under Section 54 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organisation) Act, 1996. A day after, however, the government’s decision to allow phone tapping was challenged in the Lahore High Court.

The case was adjourned for an indefinite period.

In alleged elections rigging case, Hamid Khan, representing founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan, was caught off guard during the hearing of a case related to the formation of a judicial commission on alleged election rigging.

However, shortly prior to the case being called, Hamid Khan exited the courtroom, leading to confusion.

Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar remarked that the lawyer should be summoned, as the case had already been listed for hearing.

Hamid Khan later returned and claimed he was unaware of the case being listed for today (December 11), suggesting that the hearing was scheduled for December 12 instead.

Justice Mandokhail corrected him, stating that the notice had been issued to the lead counsel, and that he should remain in contact with them to stay updated.

To further clarify, court staff showed Hamid Khan the cause list, confirming that the case was fixed today (December 11). Hamid Khan then requested the bench to hear the case after winter holidays.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024