A day after a citizen challenged a recent government notification allowing the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to surveil citizens’ phone calls in the Lahore High Court (LHC), the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) also moved a similar petition against the move in the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
Six PBC members— Shafqat Mehmood Chauhan, Abid Zuberi, Chaudhry Ishtiaq, Munir Ahmed Kakar, Tahir Faraz Abbasi, and Abid Saqi—filed the petition against a notification issued under Section 54 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organisation) Act, 1996.
The petition named the secretary of information technology, secretary of defence, secretary of interior, and the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) as respondents.
The petition argued that the notification permitting intelligence agencies to tap phone calls is unlawful. It stated that the Fair Trial Act of 2013 provides a comprehensive mechanism for such matters, and thus, the notification should be declared illegal and void. The petitioners also requested the court to suspend the notification until the case is resolved.
Against the backdrop of the IHC proceedings against surveillance of citizens, the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication on July 8 authorized the ISI to intercept and trace calls in the “interest of national security”, a notification issued in this regard said.
The ministry’s notification said the authorization was granted to the ISI under Section 54 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organisation) Act, 1996.
“In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 54 … the federal government in the interest of national security and in the apprehension of any offence, is pleased to authorise the officers not below the rank of grade 18 to be nominated from time to time by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to intercept calls and messages or to trace calls through any telecommunication system as envisaged under Section 54 of the Act,” the notification read.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ