Sale of smart glasses: LHC directs heads of authorities to appear in person

ISLAMABAD: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has directed the secretaries of the Commerce and Interior and Narcotics Control divisions, the chairman of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), and the Member Customs (Operations) to appear in person on October 15 in a constitutional petition seeking regulatory action against Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses over alleged privacy, surveillance and security risks.

According to the court order, in Writ Petition No. 56613 of 2026, titled Husnain Ul Abedien versus Federation of Pakistan and others, the reports and para-wise comments on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 had not been submitted despite the court’s earlier order dated September 28, 2026.

The court, therefore, directed the secretaries and chairmen concerned to appear personally before on October 15, 2026. The order was passed by the Lahore High Court during the hearing of the petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioner has sought intervention by the relevant federal authorities to address concerns regarding the availability and use of smart glasses equipped with cameras, microphones and recording and transmission capabilities.

The court order records that the law officer submitted a report and para-wise comments on behalf of respondent No. 7, the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA). Meanwhile, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), sought time to submit the required report and para-wise comments.

The respondents concerned include the Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Commerce Division; the Federation through the Secretary, Interior and Narcotics Control Division; the FBR through its chairman; and the Member Customs (Operations), FBR.

The petition raised concerns over the sale and use of Ray-Ban Meta and similar smart glasses that can capture photographs, record videos and audio, process information and, in supported configurations, transmit or livestream captured material through connected applications.

According to the petitioner, such devices differ from conventional cameras and mobile phones because they resemble ordinary spectacles and can be used for hands-free recording without the wearer visibly holding or pointing a recording device at another person.

The petitioner has argued that the technology could enable the recording of individuals, conversations and activities without their meaningful knowledge or consent, raising questions regarding the constitutional protection of human dignity, privacy and personal security.

The petition invokes Articles 4, 9 and 14 of the Constitution, relating to treatment in accordance with law, security of person and the inviolability of human dignity and privacy of the home, respectively.

It maintains that the potential risks extend beyond personal privacy to sensitive locations, including courts, airports, police establishments, government offices and restricted installations, where inconspicuous recording could expose security arrangements, official documents, computer screens and confidential conversations.

The petitioner has also referred to the availability of these products through online sellers, classified advertisements and physical outlets in Pakistan, including shops in Lahore, despite the country not appearing on Meta’s published list of markets where its AI glasses are officially available and supported, according to the petition.

The petition further raises questions about the regulatory status of the devices under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996. It refers to Section 29 of the Act, which deals with the approval of terminal equipment connected to a public switched network, and seeks determination of whether the smart glasses fall within the relevant regulatory framework.

On the import side, the petitioner has invoked Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, and Section 16 of the Customs Act, 1969, arguing that the federal government possesses powers to prohibit or restrict the importation of specified goods.

The petition identifies the Commerce Division as the relevant authority concerning import policy, while the Interior and Narcotics Control Division has been impleaded in view of the alleged internal and public security implications. The FBR and its Customs operations wing have also been made respondents in relation to the administration and enforcement of import restrictions.

The petitioner claimed to have submitted representations dated September 8, 2026, to the relevant authorities, seeking prohibition of the impugned products and disclosure of their type-approval, import and security-assessment records. The petition states that no effective action or speaking order had been communicated in response to those representations.

The petitioner has sought regulatory intervention to prevent alleged infringements of privacy and security, arguing that commercial interests and the convenience of users should not override the constitutional rights of people who may be recorded without their knowledge.

The latest court order, however, concerns the submission of reports and para-wise comments and the personal appearance of the concerned officials. It does not constitute a final determination on the legality of the smart glasses, their importation or the regulatory relief sought by the petitioner.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026