Illegal analysis of telephone data without judicial sanction: in-depth analysis

“Extracting information from a suspect’s personal phone during a criminal trial is a serious issue that prompted us to investigate the law on the matter,” the judges said in a ruling that allowed the appeal of a man convicted of promoting the agenda of a banned organization.

Justice Ali Baqar Najafi and Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq served as members of the court in this case.

The decision, which was written by Judge Rafiq, highlighted that people today literally live on their mobile phones, communicate with close friends and relatives, talk through audio or video calls, and share content and messages in both public and private settings. It stated that “that’s why our phone is comparable to or even bigger than a house”.

According to the verdict, the domestic and private relationships of the people they kept within the confines of their homes were legally protected by the constitution. This protection extends to all types of relationships.

“We know that human inclinations know no bounds; it extends to religion, sufism, ideology, politics, arts, culture, customs, traditions, literature, music, poetry, history, business, sports, etc.

It stated that a person could be interested in anything, for which they explored books, websites, correspondence with academics, etc., and that the pursuit of physiological understanding was not prohibited by law.

In their view, reason defied understanding, institutionalized processes and a global scheme of roads, and worked unless it was reconciled with an accepted concept of understanding.

The judgment states that until a certain time, if an individual wishes to maintain the confidentiality of information stored on their mobile device, such information can only be accessed with their express consent or in accordance with legal provisions, as the privacy of one’s whereabouts is subject to is subject to legal requirements.

It was decided that the right to privacy should take precedence over all other contradictions in national law, as it is a fundamental constitutional right.

The judgment noted that applicable law made it abundantly clear that collecting data stored in an information system or seizing products containing such data required the intervention of a court in the form of either issuing a warrant or a summons to the court after such an attachment within twenty-four hours. This was because the law stipulated that obtaining such data required permission from the court.

“Therefore, when a mobile phone is recovered from a suspect and the retrieval of data from the said phone is essential for criminal investigations, it can only be obtained with the permission of the court involved in strict compliance with the privacy rights guaranteed by the Constitution . it said.

When the suspect was arrested, the judges said an order from the relevant investigating judge was needed in case the police wanted to extract information from the suspect’s mobile phone.

Following the statement of the accused, the magistrate may issue an order limiting the scope of the investigation to the investigation and collection of information directly relevant to the case at hand, subject to the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The decision noted that in the United States of America, every individual possessed the legal right to refuse an inquest into his or her cell phone.

According to the judges, the legal system in Pakistan also has the same protection principles as the legal system in the United States. These judges also declared that such prohibitions and protections were contained in Articles 9, 12, 13, 14 and 24 of the Constitution.

The panel of judges pointed out that Article 13(b) of the Constitution made it abundantly clear that no one should be compelled to testify against himself.

As a result of these findings, the court agreed to Mr Rehmatullah’s appeal and overturned the two-year sentence imposed on him on three counts by a Gujranwala anti-terrorism court.

The prosecution’s decision to remove information or evidence from the plaintiff’s mobile phone and transfer it to the Punjab Forensic Science Bureau for study without following proper legal procedures disturbed the court.

It was noted that collecting data from a suspect’s personal mobile phone without their knowledge was not good practice as it violated the constitutional protection of the right to privacy.

View: PTA Guidelines to Protect Your Privacy Online.