The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has asked the government to disclose who had the authority to record private conversations and notified the National Assembly Secretary. The notice, served by Justice Babar Sattar, raises serious questions, including the legality of citizens’ covert surveillance and recording.
The order, stretching over seven pages, is a response to a petition filed by Najam Saqib, son of former CJP Nisar. He’s challenging a special committee National Assembly Speaker Raja Pervaiz Ashraf established to investigate alleged audio clips featuring his voice. Najam has urged the Aslam Bhootani-led NA special committee to halt the proceedings.
In reaction to this, the IHC effectively paused the NA committee’s work and demanded the identification of the parties responsible for the audio leaks.
In its detailed verdict, the IHC expects the NA to respond to five pivotal questions regarding the case. These queries include questions about parliament’s authority to investigate private citizens’ actions and which agency is authorized to record private citizens’ calls.
Moreover, the court demands that the NA secretary clarify which public authority or agency would be accountable for such surveillance if found illegal.
The questions raised touch on the balance between an individual’s right to privacy and liberty, the state’s interests, the legality of such surveillance, and the potential consequences if found illegal.
The petition submitted by Najam calls for a halt to the committee’s proceedings and the prevention of any punitive measures. He argued that the alleged audio leaks violated his privacy and constituted illicit surveillance. He urged the court to declare the recording of private conversations an infringement of fundamental human rights.
Moreover, he declared the committee established by the NA speaker to investigate the audio recordings as unlawful. The summons to Najam, his father, and two other individuals by the committee secretary, allegedly without a committee meeting, were also deemed illegal in the petition.
However, the IHC registrar’s office expressed objections to the petition, stating that the case was already under review by the Supreme Court. The registrar argued against including two different types of pleas in one petition, citing that the petitioner was challenging the committee’s notification and requesting the court to deem audio recording illegal.”
