The issue of national security and individual privacy is a complex one. Can the government, in its pursuit of safety, implement measures that infringe on basic human rights? Is there any limit to putting restrictions and implementing certain security measures in clash with basic human rights just in name of national security? The federal government’s policy of allowing a security agency to tap phone calls to deter criminal and terrorist activities at the cost of compromising privacy of citizens does not guarantee peace. However, this move can bring disastrous results if misused by the authorities concerned. In the past, the leakage of classified audio recordings of high-profile personalities has put a question mark on the validation of this act for further use in the future. There must be other measures of security surveillance instead of putting all and sundry in the cauldron of fear while discussing their private matters using modern communication means. The policy in question directly violates the basic statute of the constitution regarding the privacy of a citizen. Do other civilized nations have put such curbs to safeguard their borders and ensure peace in their respective states? Earlier, it was social media platform called X, which has put our ‘national security’ at threat and now it will be tackled through the interception of phone calls. Where is civil liberty and freedom of speech as enshrined in the constitution? By putting restrictions on modern tools of communication, desired results cannot be achieved. Rather, it could lead to more anarchy in the society. The state is turning into a ‘banana republic’, where citizens have become a subject of experiments and their privacy remains at risk. Instead of stifling the liberty of speech and depriving citizens of their modes of communication with freedom, there is a need of a thorough review of government policies. Why does terrorism exist in this part of the world? Criminal and terror activities can be thwarted through compilation of data at the local level by respective law enforcement agencies and strengthening their cooperation level. The interference in the form of interception of phone calls only infringe upon basic human rights.
The worst thing about implementation of the policy is the ambiguity of the notification. The government will allow security personnel above grade 18 to monitor this activity. However, details have not been given or rules have not been defined about what punishment will be awarded against the misuse of data by anyone. It could open a new Pandora box in the form of threats, black mailing, abuses of privacy rights and disgrace of civilians. Many such cases have been landed in courts where the leakage of audios has put a question mark on the state’s ability to ensure privacy of citizens mostly comprising notable politicians and their family members. The latest notification in fact has provided a legal cover to the covert act, which was already in practice by the security agencies. However, legal ramifications have prompted the government to act in hurry and save its skin from judicial criticism. Catching criminals through every possible means is not a bad thing. Rather, it helps facilitates the dissemination of justice. However, the perpetrators evade punishment if they belong to such circles, which are considered above the law. Regrettably, any wrongdoing by a common man can be punished but those belonging to the powerful institutions like establishment and judiciary are seldom taken to task. Our ‘powerful’ institutions remain hesitant to take to task to those persons, who evade accountability due to their status and rank in the society. They even indulge in subversion of the country’s constitution while remaining a part of the institution or after their retirement, but the government or relevant institutions let them off scot-free. These double standards only give space to provocations by politicians, who then make direct attacks on the judiciary and the establishment. It remains a million-dollar question that whether establishment and judiciary would take action against violators of the constitution. There is a need to ensure across the board accountability.
The discussion also gives an insight into the prevailing power imbalance in the country. Pakistan’s chequered history shows that the establishment had a ‘great’ influence over policies in public domain. It has directly made an impact on certain decisions regarding any policy making process. The manner in which the establishment is imposing itself on the constitutional domain of the civilian government is alarming but not surprising. The government is itself to be blamed: not only does it have malfunctioning, headless policies with no apparent plan, the government is all too happy to cede space to the establishment. This state of affairs is a disaster waiting to happen for Pakistan’s democracy and the past informs us that we cannot have a country functional for too long with the establishment so dominant. By imposing its policies on the government and the latter’s tendency to bow to such demands will only strengthen such a mindset that does not believe in democracy and protection of fundamental rights of citizens. In this scenario, some hope can be found as the Lahore High Court (LHC) has been moved to stop the engagement of the spy agency in public surveillance without formulation of proper rules. Saner voices have been raised against this violation of citizens’ rights and undue interference in the public domain. Legal experts have criticized the notification and termed it as unconstitutional and a direct attack on civil liberties. The government needs to review the notification and its ramifications in the larger public interest. A thorough scrutiny is needed before authorizing the spy agency to engage in the interception of phone calls, which could also lead to interference in national politics. Every institution needs to work in their respective domain while giving respect to the rights of citizens, which are also important.