AGL 40.15 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (0.38%)
AIRLINK 130.34 Increased By ▲ 0.81 (0.63%)
BOP 6.80 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.8%)
CNERGY 4.60 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.65%)
DCL 9.00 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.67%)
DFML 43.40 Increased By ▲ 1.71 (4.1%)
DGKC 84.19 Increased By ▲ 0.42 (0.5%)
FCCL 33.00 Increased By ▲ 0.23 (0.7%)
FFBL 78.00 Increased By ▲ 2.53 (3.35%)
FFL 11.85 Increased By ▲ 0.38 (3.31%)
HUBC 110.80 Increased By ▲ 0.25 (0.23%)
HUMNL 14.56 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KEL 5.57 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (3.34%)
KOSM 8.22 Decreased By ▼ -0.18 (-2.14%)
MLCF 39.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.1%)
NBP 60.85 Increased By ▲ 0.56 (0.93%)
OGDC 199.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-0.13%)
PAEL 26.74 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (0.34%)
PIBTL 7.79 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (1.7%)
PPL 160.00 Increased By ▲ 2.08 (1.32%)
PRL 26.83 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.37%)
PTC 18.79 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (1.79%)
SEARL 83.05 Increased By ▲ 0.61 (0.74%)
TELE 8.18 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-1.56%)
TOMCL 34.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.03%)
TPLP 9.07 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.11%)
TREET 17.09 Decreased By ▼ -0.38 (-2.18%)
TRG 60.10 Decreased By ▼ -1.22 (-1.99%)
UNITY 27.70 Increased By ▲ 0.27 (0.98%)
WTL 1.44 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (4.35%)
BR100 10,515 Increased By 108.7 (1.04%)
BR30 31,947 Increased By 234 (0.74%)
KSE100 98,278 Increased By 949.2 (0.98%)
KSE30 30,554 Increased By 361.4 (1.2%)

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has once again sought replies from the secretaries of Defence and Interior in response to a petition of former chief justice Saqib Nisar’s son, Mian Najamus Saqib challenging a Special Committee constituted by the 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 (AGP), Mansoor Usman Awan, to answer the court’s five questions related to the recording of phone calls and whether the Parliament is vested with legal authority to inquire into and investigate acts of private citizens.

In its written order, the IHC bench stated that there was a request for an adjournment on behalf of the AGP, who was busy before the Supreme Court.

He added that this Court has briefly perused the reports filed on behalf of respondents No 5 to 8 and “it appears that none of the divisions of the Federal Government or Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) have addressed all the questions that posed to them, including, inter alia, as to which agencies possess the capacity to undertake electronic surveillance of citizens and record the telephone calls.”

Justice Sattar wrote, “This Court while exercising restraint will afford one more opportunity to the Prime Minister’s office, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Defence and any other division, department or entity working under the control of the Federal Government to file an updated report as to the queries of this Court, failing which this Court would have no option but to directly implead the intelligence agencies and telecom operators to seek responses from them.”

He further said that let PTA also file a revised report providing relevant information with regard to who has been authorised to undertake legal intercepts for purposes of the laws currently in force in Pakistan and the legal framework and mechanism for the grant of permission to undertake such legal intercepts. “And to the extent that any telecom operators have been issued any directions to allow legal intercepts, details of such instructions and/or licence provisions will also be placed on record as part of PTA’s report,” directed the IHC bench.

After issuing the aforementioned directions, the IHC bench deferred the hearing of the case till October 30 for further proceedings. It added that meanwhile, the injunctive order will continue till the next date of hearing.

In this matter, Mian Najam moved the court through advocates, Sardar Latif Khosa and Shoaib Shaheen and cited the Federation of Pakistan through the secretary Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and the 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 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 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.”

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023

Comments

Comments are closed.