AIRLINK 74.85 Decreased By ▼ -0.40 (-0.53%)
BOP 5.09 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.39%)
CNERGY 4.48 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-2.61%)
DFML 33.10 Increased By ▲ 0.57 (1.75%)
DGKC 89.00 Decreased By ▼ -1.35 (-1.49%)
FCCL 22.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.28 (-1.22%)
FFBL 33.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.47 (-1.4%)
FFL 9.97 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.7%)
GGL 11.22 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (1.54%)
HBL 114.65 Decreased By ▼ -0.25 (-0.22%)
HUBC 136.20 Decreased By ▼ -1.14 (-0.83%)
HUMNL 9.60 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.73%)
KEL 4.61 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-1.07%)
KOSM 4.76 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (1.28%)
MLCF 39.98 Decreased By ▼ -0.56 (-1.38%)
OGDC 139.71 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.03%)
PAEL 27.44 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-0.76%)
PIAA 25.31 Increased By ▲ 0.91 (3.73%)
PIBTL 6.85 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-1.01%)
PPL 123.70 Decreased By ▼ -1.60 (-1.28%)
PRL 27.19 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-1.31%)
PTC 13.94 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-1.48%)
SEARL 62.19 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (0.55%)
SNGP 72.65 Decreased By ▼ -0.33 (-0.45%)
SSGC 10.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.85%)
TELE 8.76 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.23%)
TPLP 11.60 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-1.11%)
TRG 66.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.15%)
UNITY 25.82 Increased By ▲ 0.67 (2.66%)
WTL 1.41 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-2.08%)
BR100 7,788 Decreased By -14.9 (-0.19%)
BR30 25,629 Decreased By -187.2 (-0.72%)
KSE100 74,484 Decreased By -47.6 (-0.06%)
KSE30 23,959 Increased By 4.8 (0.02%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court held that spying over or extracting data from a personal phone of an individual or suspect is unconstitutional and illegal except with the permission of the concerned court.

The court passed this order in a petition of Muhammad Rehmatullah, who was convicted and sentenced by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Gujranwala in a case under sections 11-F(2),11-G,11-W and 8/9 of the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997, registered with police station CTD, Gujranwala.

The court said the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

Extracting cell phone data without person’s consent declared illegal

The court, therefore, allowed the appeal and, extending the benefit of the doubt, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and ordered to release him forthwith if not required in any other criminal case.

The court observed that any information the person wants to keep secret in his cell phone cannot be extracted except with his consent or as the law directs because privacy is subject to law; therefore, collection of information is against the law.

The court said the law clearly states that acquiring data stored in an information system or seizure of any articles requires an intimation to the concerned court or obtaining a warrant within 24 hours.

The court said when any mobile phone is recovered from a suspect, and any data retrieval from the said phone is essential for criminal investigation, it could only be obtained with the permission of the concerned court.

The court observed that if any data in a cell phone shows any crime link, that can be looked into to attend any emergent situation but then such inspection must be brought to the notice of the court concerned.

The court said under Article 13(b) of the Constitution, no one could be compelled to be a witness against himself; thus, offering a suspect’s mobile phone for scrutiny can incriminate him for any offence because it is not expected that everything stored in the phone by consent or downloaded systemically must be fresh in the memory. The court concluded that this offer amounts to self-incrimination, which has been prohibited under the Constitution.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023

Comments

Comments are closed.