AGL 38.02 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.21%)
AIRLINK 197.36 Increased By ▲ 3.45 (1.78%)
BOP 9.54 Increased By ▲ 0.22 (2.36%)
CNERGY 5.91 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.2%)
DCL 8.82 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (1.61%)
DFML 35.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.72 (-1.97%)
DGKC 96.86 Increased By ▲ 4.32 (4.67%)
FCCL 35.25 Increased By ▲ 1.28 (3.77%)
FFBL 88.94 Increased By ▲ 6.64 (8.07%)
FFL 13.17 Increased By ▲ 0.42 (3.29%)
HUBC 127.55 Increased By ▲ 6.94 (5.75%)
HUMNL 13.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.74%)
KEL 5.32 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (1.92%)
KOSM 7.00 Increased By ▲ 0.48 (7.36%)
MLCF 44.70 Increased By ▲ 2.59 (6.15%)
NBP 61.42 Increased By ▲ 1.61 (2.69%)
OGDC 214.67 Increased By ▲ 3.50 (1.66%)
PAEL 38.79 Increased By ▲ 1.21 (3.22%)
PIBTL 8.25 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (2.23%)
PPL 193.08 Increased By ▲ 2.76 (1.45%)
PRL 38.66 Increased By ▲ 0.49 (1.28%)
PTC 25.80 Increased By ▲ 2.35 (10.02%)
SEARL 103.60 Increased By ▲ 5.66 (5.78%)
TELE 8.30 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.97%)
TOMCL 35.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.09%)
TPLP 13.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.25 (-1.85%)
TREET 22.16 Decreased By ▼ -0.57 (-2.51%)
TRG 55.59 Increased By ▲ 2.72 (5.14%)
UNITY 32.97 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.03%)
WTL 1.60 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (5.26%)
BR100 11,727 Increased By 342.7 (3.01%)
BR30 36,377 Increased By 1165.1 (3.31%)
KSE100 109,513 Increased By 3238.2 (3.05%)
KSE30 34,513 Increased By 1160.1 (3.48%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court held that spying over or extracting data from a personal phone of an individual or suspect is unconstitutional and illegal except with the permission of the concerned court.

The court passed this order in a petition of Muhammad Rehmatullah, who was convicted and sentenced by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Gujranwala in a case under sections 11-F(2),11-G,11-W and 8/9 of the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997, registered with police station CTD, Gujranwala.

The court said the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

Extracting cell phone data without person’s consent declared illegal

The court, therefore, allowed the appeal and, extending the benefit of the doubt, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and ordered to release him forthwith if not required in any other criminal case.

The court observed that any information the person wants to keep secret in his cell phone cannot be extracted except with his consent or as the law directs because privacy is subject to law; therefore, collection of information is against the law.

The court said the law clearly states that acquiring data stored in an information system or seizure of any articles requires an intimation to the concerned court or obtaining a warrant within 24 hours.

The court said when any mobile phone is recovered from a suspect, and any data retrieval from the said phone is essential for criminal investigation, it could only be obtained with the permission of the concerned court.

The court observed that if any data in a cell phone shows any crime link, that can be looked into to attend any emergent situation but then such inspection must be brought to the notice of the court concerned.

The court said under Article 13(b) of the Constitution, no one could be compelled to be a witness against himself; thus, offering a suspect’s mobile phone for scrutiny can incriminate him for any offence because it is not expected that everything stored in the phone by consent or downloaded systemically must be fresh in the memory. The court concluded that this offer amounts to self-incrimination, which has been prohibited under the Constitution.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023

Comments

Comments are closed.