Karachi: Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday ruled that any act of wiretapping without legal mechanism is “illegal”.
The court rejected the prosecutor’s request for an additional hearing on the audio leak.
Justice Babar Sattar of IHC presided over the hearing on pleas filed by former first wife Bushra Bibi and former CJP’s son Najam Saqib related to the vote leak.
During the proceedings, Additional Attorney General Manor Iqbal Dogal informed the court that the Ministry of Interior has developed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that allows ISI and IB to obtain information directly from service providers.
Justice Babar questioned the legality of the SOP issued by department officials and not the authorities concerned.
He questioned the Ministry of Home Affairs’ reasons for issuing such SOPs, asking under which law it was allowed to directly share accommodation and obtain data from service providers without warrant.
Justice Babar said the SOP issued by the divisional officer did not include the phone tapping feature, which was an important difference. He said it is necessary to check the legal status of this document.
The AAG said that the Sindh High Court (SHC) had ordered the Secret Intelligence Service to release information about the missing persons. The court then asked whether this direction from the SHC could be used for a single court or as a permanent measure.
The court directed the AAG to review the policy framed in 2013 and ascertain whether the data was collected in accordance with the scope of the policy. AAG confirmed compliance.
He asked the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) based on his testimony during the proceedings.
In response, the PTA counsel explained that a case before the SHC had invited all stakeholders, including the PTA, to create a mechanism. After that, no compromise became the 2013 policy.
The court confirmed whether the PTA had authorized any organization to conduct wiretapping.
In response, the lawyer insisted that the PTA did not authorize the phone calls. Lawyers say the PTA’s role is regulatory and does not include supervisory measures.
After the Impex case, Mustafa said that any indication of the division was considered a decision by the federal government.
A representative of the Islamabad police told the court that there was no restriction on obtaining such information.
Justice Babar then asked the police officer why anyone could enter his house without a letter.
The lawyer said that his expertise is not in surveillance or recording, but in collecting material after the incident.
The court asked if they had ever received a certificate in 11 years. The lawyer replied that, in his understanding, he should not have received a warrant to collect the material after the incident.
The court also questioned how private video footage could be obtained from someone’s home. The lawyer said they do not monitor and only collect material after an incident for the purpose of proof.
The court asked why the Islamabad police did not need a warrant for 11 years and said it did not know why the warrant was needed.
The court also asked who instructed the Inspector General not to seek a warrant. The law passed by the parliament is considered unnecessary, considering that it has not been examined for 11 years.
Justice Babar said that if the law is passed, everyone should be aware of its requirements.
