A Karachi sessions court on Wednesday rejected a plea seeking an FIR against the chief executive officer of a private bank, its branch managers and other officials over the alleged commercial use of Safe City resources, including cameras, to trace defaulting vehicles.
The court, however, ordered the Sindh police chief to ensure that police extend no assistance to the bank or any other financial institution in identifying, tracing, intercepting or recovering defaulted vehicles, except as permitted by law and within the authority granted by the relevant statutory provisions.
The court directed the DIG Information Technology and the Director General of the Safe City Project, Karachi, to ensure that surveillance, tracking or location information is provided to a financial institution, its focal person or any private individual only when authorised by law, lawful process, or a competent authority with jurisdiction.
It further ruled that no private focal person nominated by the bank may be given independent or unrestricted access to police or Safe City systems. Any coordination or access, where legally permissible, must remain subject to the authorisation, supervision and safeguards set by the competent authority and applicable law.
The court clarified that its order does not bar police from taking lawful action where a cognizable offence is disclosed, where a vehicle is required for a lawful criminal investigation, or where seizure, recovery or police assistance is otherwise authorised by law or by a competent court or authority.
The judge ordered the police to submit a compliance report within 15 days. The report must specify the legal or statutory basis, the applicable rules, SOPs or other competent authorisation under which police and Safe City resources are being used to identify or trace defaulted vehicles, along with the instructions issued under this order.
A citizen, Imran, had filed the application under Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking registration of an FIR against the proposed accused. He claimed the bank was using Safe City cameras and information from the Safe City system for private and commercial purposes, particularly to monitor and trace vehicles allegedly belonging to defaulting customers.
He said this affected the privacy and property rights of citizens and that such surveillance and tracing can only be carried out by competent government agencies, in accordance with law and for lawful purposes.
In its written order, the court observed that a financial institution’s statutory right of recovery does not by itself make every method of locating, tracing or taking possession of a vehicle lawful. It added that the mere fact that a private bank requested police assistance does not, by itself, make that assistance unlawful.
