Islamabad police seeks overturn IHC’s order about surveillance data access

Islamabad Police have requested the Advocate General to challenge a recent order by the Islamabad High Court (IHC). The order has effectively restricted intelligence and law enforcement agencies from investigating crimes and monitoring terrorist activities. The court earlier ruled that cellular companies are not allowed to share citizens’ data with law enforcement agencies. Justice Babar Sattar made this decision.
The cellular companies following this order of the IHC have stopped sharing Call Detail Records with law enforcement agencies. Reportedly this order was given in response to the petitions from Bushra Bibi -wife of Imran Khan, and Najam Saqib – son of former chief justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar. This has caused a halt in investigations into several cases including high-profile ones. This important that law enforcement agencies mainly depend on Call Detail Records (CDRs) to track the locations of hardcore criminals.
This order is reported to be a major obstacle in the work of intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The refusal of cellular companies to cooperate has made locating criminals and terrorists through geo-fencing is now unfeasible. Geo-fencing, which establishes virtual boundaries around geographic areas, is essential for crime prevention, investigations, and the swift dissemination of information in cases like child abductions and missing persons.
In his order, Justice Sattar maintained, “It appears from the reports filed by the federal government, PTA, and intelligence agencies, and arguments of the learned counsel, that no authorization has been granted by the federal government under Section 5 of the Telegraph Act and or Section 54 of the Telecommunication Act to authorize any individual, entity, or agency to intercept calls, messages, and surveil citizens of Pakistan.” the order further stated, “Unauthorized action is a violation and can result in a fine and imprisonment under the Telegraph Act, the Telecommunication Act, the Fair Trial Act, and PECA. Additionally, the Fair Trial Act outlines a specific process for conducting surveillance. The Fair Trial Act includes provisions for proper procedures, oversight, and checks and balances, such as internal executive review conducted by the relevant minister who approves the surveillance and a subsequent review committee consisting of ministers for law, defense, and interior.”
The Fair Trial Act allows a judge of the high court to grant requests for surveillance. No phone tapping or other surveillance can be carried out without a warrant issued by a high court judge. He also mentioned that it seems no government official, intelligence agency, or police personnel is authorized to conduct surveillance on citizens of Pakistan. Anyone involved in unauthorized surveillance, including government employees, investigation or intelligence agency personnel, and telecom companies or service providers, can be held accountable for offenses under the Telegraph Act, the Telecommunication Act, the Fair Trial Act, and PECA.
He ruled, “Any unauthorized surveillance would also be in breach of fundamental rights of citizens guaranteed by Articles 9, 10A, 14 and 19 of the Constitution, read with Article 4, and would cause irreparable harm to the liberty, dignity, and privacy of the citizens being surveilled.”
Till the next date of hearing, the intelligence agencies, including the ISI and IB, and police authorities have been restricted from surveilling any citizens, except under requirements of the Fair Trial Act and warrants duly issued by a judge of the high court. Neither PTA nor the other telecom companies shall authorize the use of their services or equipment for purposes of any surveillance or interception of phone calls or data, according to this reported order of the IHC.
Islamabad Advocate General was reported to have stated his intention to file a civil miscellaneous application before the same judge before the next hearing, expressing hope that the court would issue an appropriate order in the matter. The next hearing of this case is scheduled for June 25. (By Rana Kashif)