ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Monday, gave the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan four weeks to answer the court’s five questions related to the recording of phone calls and whether Parliament is vested with legal authority to inquire into and investigate acts of private citizens.

A single bench of Justice Babar Sattar issued the directions while hearing a petition of former chief justice Saqib Nisar’s son Mian Najamus Saqib challenging a Special Committee constituted by the National Assembly speaker to audit, inquire into and investigate audio leaks involving him.

Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan was also present to assist the court.

During the hearing, AGP Mansoor Awan said the matter was also being heard in the Supreme Court and requested the bench to wait for answers to questions under debate in the apex court.

At this, Sardar Latif Khosa, the petitioner’s lawyer contended that the issue at hand was a matter of the fundamental rights of the people of Pakistan. He added that “how can the government form a judicial commission without consulting the chief justice of Pakistan?” He further said the government should have consulted the CJP, who should have nominated the judges to be part of the inquiry.

Justice Sattar asked the AGP “how much time will you need to answer the court’s questions?” Then, he gave the AGP four weeks to assist the court regarding its five questions. He also extended the suspension of the summons issued by the special committee to Najam Saqib and deferred the hearing till August 16 for further proceedings.

Mian Najam moved the court through his counsels, Sardar Latif Khosa and Shoaib Shaheen advocate 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.”

Justice Sattar had asked the attorney general to assist the court regarding the following questions including, is Parliament vested with legal authority to inquire into and investigate acts of private citizens who hold no public office or whether assuming such power intrudes into the domain of the Executive?

He added that does the Constitution and the rules framed under it to regulate parliamentary procedure vest in the office of the speaker National Assembly the authority to constitute a Special Committee to investigate actions attributable to a private citizen who is not a member of Parliament or a public officeholder? and does the Constitution or statutory law empower the Executive, and in the present case the Federal Government, to record or surveil phone calls or telecommunication between private citizens, and if so the supervisory and regulatory legal regime within which such recording and surveillance can take place?

The bench said that to the extent that recording of phone calls is permitted, which public authority or agency is authorised to do so, how is the right of a citizen to liberty and privacy to be balanced against the interest of the State in recording phone calls or undertaking surveillance and which agency is vested with legal authority to undertake such balancing exercise? and in the event that there is no legal sanction to tap phones, record telecommunication between citizens or undertake surveillance, which public authority or agency is to be held liable for such surveillance and encroachment over the right of citizens to liberty and privacy and/or release of illegally recorded private conversations to the public?

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023