The Islamabad High Court (IHC) sought on Thursday the federal government’s reply yet again on the legality of surveillance and recording of citizens’ telephone conversations in a plea pertaining to audio leaks.
Taking up the plea filed by former chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) Saqib Nisar’s son Najam Ali Saqib against a special committee of the National Assembly tasked with probing his purported audio leaks, the bench, headed by Justice Babar Sattar, directed the secretaries of the prime minister, interior minister and the defence minister to submit detailed answers and affidavits in response to questions put forth in the May 31 order.
During the hearing, the court was informed that the attorney general of Pakistan (AGP) was not present.
The court gave the respondents two weeks to submit a reply. In case of failure to do so, then the relevant federal secretaries should appear before the court in person on September 18, directed the court.
The IHC had earlier inquired from the federal government on the constitutional and legal grounds for surveillance and secret recording of citizens’ calls. The Centre was asked to clarify whether this is permitted under the law, and if not, then clarify which authority was responsible for violating citizens’ privacy.
During the hearing on May 31, the court suspended the NA special committee’s notice summoning Saqib and put forth five questions before the Centre.
The court asked the AGP and the amicus curiae whether a citizen who is not a public office holder or a member of the assembly could be investigated by the parliament.
He asked if the speaker could form a special committee for a private citizen as per the rules.
The judge questioned whether the Constitution or any law allowed the executive to secretly record the calls of private citizens and violate their privacy.
He asked if phone records are correct then which authority or agency can record these calls under which law and under what mechanism.
The IHC questioned which authority or agency was responsible for violating the privacy of citizens when legally no call could be recorded secretly.
It also sought a reply from the NA secretary and asked under which authority could a special committee be constituted to investigate an audio leak between two private persons.
