The appeal has nominated the former Chief Justice’s son, PTA, the Ministry of Defense, and others as parties.
The government argues that the IHC’s decision is contrary to facts and that the high court had granted relief that was not even requested.
The plea also contends that the IHC has no authority to take suo motu notice under Article 199, hereby the high court’s decision should be declared null and void.
The federal government stated that when an alleged audio leak involving the distribution of tickets surfaced, the National Assembly Speaker took notice and formed a committee.
The former Chief Justice’s son had also challenged the committee’s summons in the IHC.
The government argues that the IHC’s demand for reports from institutions is an overstepping of its authority and that the high court cannot conduct fact-finding.
Prime Minister (PM) responsible for the mass surveillance
Earlier, the IHC declared that ‘any form of surveillance’ on citizens was illegal and unconstitutional, asking Prime Minister (PM) Shehbaz Sharif to explain who is ‘responsible for the mass surveillance.
IHC Justice Babar Sattar issued a written order on the plea of Bushra Bibi, wife of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, and Najamus Saqib, son of former chief justice Saqib Nisar, against the audio leaks.
In the written order, Justice Sattar said that the federal government was responsible for the surveillance of four million citizens and PM Shehbaz and cabinet members were “collectively and individually” responsible for the mass surveillance.
The IHC also ordered the Prime Minister to submit a report on the legal framework of the surveillance system within six weeks. The report must also clarify whether the surveillance is being carried out under the law and the constitution.
It also directed the Prime Minister to explain who is responsible for the installation of the surveillance system and mass surveillance and “who is in charge of the system that is affecting the privacy of citizens”.
Meanwhile, the IHC also issued a contempt of court notice to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) Chairman and its members, directing them to submit a response within six weeks. “The court is of the view that the PTA misinterpreted the surveillance system in the report.