- Things would not progress if federal govt ‘lies in court’, remarks Justice Babar
- AAG says rules should be made regarding matter of secret recordings
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday restrained the telecom companies from recording phone calls and data for surveillance purposes while hearing the Audio Leaks Case.
The single-member IHC bench, comprising Justice Babar Sattar sought clarity regarding the law authorizing the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) to carry out surveillance activities.
Justice Babar Sattar passed the order while hearing the petitions of former first lady Bushra Bibi and former chief justice Saqib Nisar’s son against their respective audio leaks.
The court remarked: “Under which law are you recording peoples’ calls”, asking Additional Attorney General (AAG) Munnawar Iqbal to inform the court officially. “Who has given the permission; who has given the authority to record calls?” the judge said.
“You earlier told the court no one was authorized to tap phone calls. If you back down from this position now there will be consequences. The law says that the federal government can authorize this, but according to you it was not authorized,” he added.
Additional Attorney General Munnawar Iqbal replied, “It is being done under a legal framework.”
The AAG clarified that his earlier reply was only to the extent of the audio leaks involving the petitioners.
Responding to the AAG’s clarification, Justice Babar remarked that things would not progress if the federal government “lies in court”. He said various institutions and offices, including the Prime Minister’s Office, have submitted their responses in court. They maintain that no one has been permitted to carry out legal interception. “If the authority to conduct surveillance has been granted, tell us where and how,” the judge remarked.
At this, the AAG stated that rules should be made in this matter if none exist.
The judge questioned who would make the rules, and also asked who would notify the institutions about the rules. He further asked if any secret recording has been made till now after seeking permission from the courts.
“Under the law, every six months one’s permit for such secret recording will be reviewed, has any such review committee been formed to date?”
Justice Babar questioned AAG whether the phone recording without judicial permission was also punishable. “Did the PTA’s license mention these conditions or has the PTA given a policy in this regard? Has this law been followed in the last one year or not?”
The court, continuing its line of inquiry, asked what action was taken on the matter and how did audio leaks go viral on social media. Justice Babar also questioned if the social media post could be traced through the IP address.
The judge, expressing annoyance over the non-registration of FIR, said the lack of FIA’s ability and that of other institutions to trace a post can be regarded as a failure of the institution.
Following the remarks, the court barred telecom companies from using phone calls and data for surveillance and warned them that the companies would be held responsible if their equipment was found used in illegal surveillance.
Justice Babar further sought records of secretly recorded conversations from the federal government and also directed AAG to submit a reply to the court questions.
In December 2023, the IHC ordered the FIA to conduct a forensic examination of the leaked audio recording of a conversation between Bushra Bibi, wife of PTI founder Imran Khan, and her lawyer Latif Khosa.
Justice Sattar expressed concern about the airing of private conversations on television channels.
During the hearing he remarked “Big Boss is listening to everything, you should know.” This drew laughter in the courtroom.
The attorney general for Pakistan (AGP) later informed the IHC that the government had not granted permission for audio tapping to any institution or spy agency, including the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).
AGP Mansoor Usman Awan further told the IHC that any government agency conducting such recordings was doing so “unlawfully”, as he submitted a report to the court on behalf of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).
