AGL 37.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.21%)
AIRLINK 222.89 Increased By ▲ 0.46 (0.21%)
BOP 10.82 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-1.28%)
CNERGY 7.56 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-1.31%)
DCL 9.42 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-2.18%)
DFML 40.96 Decreased By ▼ -0.74 (-1.77%)
DGKC 106.76 Decreased By ▼ -3.99 (-3.6%)
FCCL 37.07 Decreased By ▼ -0.99 (-2.6%)
FFL 19.24 Increased By ▲ 0.95 (5.19%)
HASCOL 13.18 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-1.42%)
HUBC 132.64 Decreased By ▼ -2.32 (-1.72%)
HUMNL 14.73 Decreased By ▼ -0.86 (-5.52%)
KEL 5.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-2.88%)
KOSM 7.48 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.94%)
MLCF 48.18 Decreased By ▼ -2.15 (-4.27%)
NBP 66.29 Decreased By ▼ -0.18 (-0.27%)
OGDC 223.26 Decreased By ▼ -5.35 (-2.34%)
PAEL 43.50 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (0.3%)
PIBTL 9.07 Decreased By ▼ -0.23 (-2.47%)
PPL 198.24 Decreased By ▼ -4.89 (-2.41%)
PRL 42.24 Decreased By ▼ -0.62 (-1.45%)
PTC 27.39 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.22%)
SEARL 110.08 Increased By ▲ 3.06 (2.86%)
TELE 10.52 Increased By ▲ 0.74 (7.57%)
TOMCL 36.62 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.03%)
TPLP 14.95 Decreased By ▼ -0.28 (-1.84%)
TREET 26.53 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-0.97%)
TRG 68.85 Decreased By ▼ -1.30 (-1.85%)
UNITY 34.19 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
WTL 1.79 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (1.7%)
BR100 12,363 Decreased By -32.9 (-0.27%)
BR30 38,218 Decreased By -629.2 (-1.62%)
KSE100 117,120 Increased By 111.6 (0.1%)
KSE30 36,937 Increased By 72.2 (0.2%)

EDITORIAL: While it has become a normal practice to malign, through purported audio leaks, opposition leaders as well as judges whose decisions do not sit well with the powers that be, Islamabad High Court has raised critical questions about the invasion of the citizens’ right to privacy.

Hearing a petition on Wednesday filed by a son of former chief justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar regarding an alleged leaked conversation between him and the wife of ex-prime minister Imran Khan, Justice Babar Sattar asked of the Additional Attorney General (AAG) under which law phone calls are being recorded? Who has given the permission? Who has given the authority to record calls? A befuddled AAG tried to explain that “it’s being done under a legal framework.”

But he was reminded by the honourable Justice that the court was earlier told that no one was authorised to tap phone calls, and that if he went back on his position there will be consequences. Justice Sattar also noted that in their submissions before the court various institutions’ offices, including the Prime Minister’s Office, had maintained that no one was permitted to carry out interceptions, adding “if the authority to conduct surveillance has been granted, tell us where and how?”

These pertinent questions were aimed at establishing whether or not the law allows the executive to monitor and record private conversations. All the AAG could say was that rules should be made if none exist. In other words, the law does not permit the executive to intercept phone or internet communications.

As a matter of fact, secret recording of audios or videos is a crime under the law. The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, clearly states that “a person commits the offence of cyber stalking who, with the intent to coerce or intimidate or harass any persons, uses an information system, internet website, electronic mail or any other similar means of communication” to monitor people.

Yet snooping on citizens goes on unchecked and uncontrolled. Actually, prominent leaders of the PML-N ruling at the Centre and in Punjab, not only have happily been using ‘audio leaks’ whosoever makes them to embarrass or blackmail their political opponents, but also claim to be in possession of more such audios/videos. It is a sad reflection on how far our rulers are willing to take this society down the path to regression.

The court’s queries are meant to determine who is to be held accountable for such unlawful invasions of privacy. Going by this government’s tendency to defend certain forces’ wrongdoings irrespective of what is at stake, it will try to do the same again.

But as Justice Babar Sattar observed, things will not progress if the federal government “lies in court”. The remark, of course, was made in the context of the present proceedings. The final outcome of the case, nevertheless, will also decide if civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution are to be fully respected or will continue to be trampled upon.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.