AGL 40.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
AIRLINK 129.06 Decreased By ▼ -0.47 (-0.36%)
BOP 6.75 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.05%)
CNERGY 4.49 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-3.02%)
DCL 8.55 Decreased By ▼ -0.39 (-4.36%)
DFML 40.82 Decreased By ▼ -0.87 (-2.09%)
DGKC 80.96 Decreased By ▼ -2.81 (-3.35%)
FCCL 32.77 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFBL 74.43 Decreased By ▼ -1.04 (-1.38%)
FFL 11.74 Increased By ▲ 0.27 (2.35%)
HUBC 109.58 Decreased By ▼ -0.97 (-0.88%)
HUMNL 13.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.81 (-5.56%)
KEL 5.31 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-1.48%)
KOSM 7.72 Decreased By ▼ -0.68 (-8.1%)
MLCF 38.60 Decreased By ▼ -1.19 (-2.99%)
NBP 63.51 Increased By ▲ 3.22 (5.34%)
OGDC 194.69 Decreased By ▼ -4.97 (-2.49%)
PAEL 25.71 Decreased By ▼ -0.94 (-3.53%)
PIBTL 7.39 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-3.52%)
PPL 155.45 Decreased By ▼ -2.47 (-1.56%)
PRL 25.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.94 (-3.52%)
PTC 17.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.96 (-5.2%)
SEARL 78.65 Decreased By ▼ -3.79 (-4.6%)
TELE 7.86 Decreased By ▼ -0.45 (-5.42%)
TOMCL 33.73 Decreased By ▼ -0.78 (-2.26%)
TPLP 8.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.66 (-7.28%)
TREET 16.27 Decreased By ▼ -1.20 (-6.87%)
TRG 58.22 Decreased By ▼ -3.10 (-5.06%)
UNITY 27.49 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.22%)
WTL 1.39 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.72%)
BR100 10,445 Increased By 38.5 (0.37%)
BR30 31,189 Decreased By -523.9 (-1.65%)
KSE100 97,798 Increased By 469.8 (0.48%)
KSE30 30,481 Increased By 288.3 (0.95%)

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.