ISLAMABAD: On Thursday, members of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) challenged the federal government’s decision to permit the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to intercept citizens’ calls and messages in the Islamabad High Court (IHC). They requested that the court declare the notification to be void.
Shafqat Mehmood Chauhan, Abid Shahid Zuberi, Munir Ahmed Kakar, Tahir Fraz Abbasi, Chaudhry Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan, and Abid Saqi were the six PBC members that moved the court.
These attorneys are members of the opposing group rather than being office holders of the apex council.
The SRO 1005(I)/2024, which allowed ISI personnel ranked BS-18 or higher to monitor civilians in the sake of national security, was contested in the case.
It argued that the notification made in accordance with Section 54 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) Act was unlawful and that the Fair Trial Act of 2013 provided the necessary procedures for handling this situation.
“The petitioners argued that Section 54 of the Telecom Act, which gave the federal government the authority to intercept calls, was ultra vires because it suffered from excessive delegation, granting the federal government unbridled powers and unfettered discretion without sufficient legal and constitutional safeguards, even before the Investigation for Fair Trial Act was promulgated.”
While the case is still proceeding, the petitioners asked the court to deem the notification void.
A citizen had also petitioned the Lahore High Court the day before, challenging the federal government’s decision to give the ISI permission to intercept residents’ calls and messages.
It should be recalled that the son of a former chief justice, the former prime minister and his wife, and other people were parties to an audio leak case that Justice Babar Sattar of the IHC was hearing.
Justice Sattar presented a series of questions to the relevant parties on May 5 of last year, initially requesting them to clarify which legal provision allowed the executive to intercept or record private persons’ phone conversations.
The federal government gave the ISI the authority to “intercept calls and messages” in an attempt to legitimize the monitoring, ostensibly in response to Justice Sattar’s inquiries in the audio leaks case.
The IHC was made aware of the existence of the Lawful Intercept Management System (LIMS), a mass surveillance system designed to monitor millions of citizens in defiance of laws and regulations, prior to the publication of the notification allowing the ISI to spy on citizens.
