Three petitions have been filed in the Lahore High Court (LHC) against the government’s decision to authorize Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to tap phone calls.  The petitions argue that the order infringes upon citizens’ constitutional rights and lacks legal basis.

On July 8, the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication had formally empowered the ISI to intercept and trace telecommunications, citing national security needs. According to the notification issued, officers not below the rank of grade 18, as nominated by the ISI, are empowered to intercept and trace calls and messages through any telecommunication system, prioritizing national defense and security against foreign threats.

Citizen Mashkoor Hus­sain filed a writ petition through Advocate Nadeem Sarwar, arguing that the government’s directive, issued under the Fair Trial Act of 2013, violates Articles 4, 9, 10-A, 14, and 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The petition highlights concerns over privacy, due process, and freedom of speech. It asserts that the ISI lacks the legal authority to intercept private communications and that such actions require judicial oversight.

A second petition was submitted by Advocate Azhar Siddique, who contended that the authorization for the ISI to tap phones is unconstitutional and breaches citizens’ fundamental rights. Siddique’s petition calls for the LHC to annul the government’s order, emphasizing that it poses a significant threat to civil liberties and democratic norms.

The third petition was filed by journalist Arshad Mehmood, who argued that the government’s order violates the fundamental rights to privacy and free speech guaranteed under the Constitution. Mehmood’s petition stresses that such surveillance measures should be subject to strict legal scrutiny and oversight to prevent abuse.

All three petitions underscore the potential for abuse of power and the lack of transparency in surveillance activities. The petitioners urged the LHC to declare the government’s decision null and void, arguing that it undermines the rule of law and sets a dangerous precedent for state surveillance.

The LHC has yet to schedule hearings for these petitions.