National security in the age of constant digital access and hyper-connectivity is a complex and contentious issue. On the one hand, these technologies provide law enforcement agencies with powerful tools to track criminals and their networks with unprecedented efficiency. For example, the ability to geolocate mobile phones enabled authorities to identify and apprehend many individuals involved in the 9th May riots.

However, this same pervasive access to data carries the inherent risk of misuse and abuse. Instances of phone tapping, leaked private conversations, and the public release of embarrassing videos targeting politicians, government officials, and judges underscore the potential for such tools to become instruments of intimidation and defamation. This raises a crucial question: where do we draw the line between safeguarding national security and protecting individual privacy? And how can we ensure the common citizen’s rights are upheld without undermining the ability of law enforcement to combat wrongdoing? These are the delicate issues the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench has been tasked with addressing.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail of the Supreme Court recently described the current laws governing phone tapping as ambiguous. His remarks came during a case challenging the Ministry of Information Technology and Communications’ authorisation of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to intercept and trace calls in the name of national security. The judge astutely pointed out that, under the law, only a judge has the authority to permit phone tapping, and the legislation does not allow for indiscriminate and continuous surveillance of citizens. His observation aligns with international practices, where judicial oversight plays a crucial role in issuing warrants for searches, arrests, or surveillance. This ensures that no single agency or entity wields unchecked power without accountability or oversight.

As the Supreme Court deliberates this matter, it is imperative that the judgment strikes a careful balance—preserving national security while safeguarding the right to privacy enshrined in both the constitution and international human rights law. A judicious resolution is vital, not only to protect citizens from undue intrusion but also to uphold the integrity of the legal and democratic framework upon which our nation is built.