The Safe City Project

The topic of today's lecture is on everyone's lips right now: the Safe City Project started, and in Lahore and some other cities, cameras were installed near traffic signals, large, high-quality cameras were installed. The purpose was that if someone violates a signal, violates a traffic rule, they'll be caught using these cameras, and after being caught, an e-ticket will be sent to their address, saying, this challan has been issued for this violation, please pay it. Now two objectives were pursued in this. One objective was to reduce conflict with traffic wardens, since arguments break out with traffic wardens, or a traffic warden gets falsely accused, that a wrong challan was issued, I didn't do this, so they took it out of the traffic warden's hands and put it on the camera. Now the camera will catch everything, and after being caught by the camera, the matter stays between the camera and you, that was one objective. The second objective was awareness, there's no doubt that, as a result of the cameras installed under the Safe City Project, there's been a great deal of change in Lahore on this point, that, sir, the camera will take the picture and send the e-ticket. Now they tried to keep this fair, that if you have any objection, you can challenge it, and it's not that you have to show up in person, they gave an e-ticket so you can challenge it through the e-ticket itself. Despite this fairness, some mistakes happen with the cameras too. For example, a person came to me and said, sir, I was standing at the signal, and despite standing at the signal, the warden told me to move my car forward because there was an ambulance behind wanting to get through. He moved his car forward, the traffic signal was red, and he got an e-ticket saying he violated traffic rules. I replied to his e-ticket, and in that reply explained that I did not personally violate this traffic signal, the traffic warden told me to cross, an ambulance was standing behind, so it could get through. I was pleasantly surprised, because in Pakistan a prompt response on such matters is quite rare, that within twenty-four hours a reply came to this e-ticket saying, we are withdrawing this e-ticket, because in that photo both the presence of the ambulance behind you and the warden's signal are visible, therefore we are withdrawing this e-ticket. So that's one very good side of these measures, now the other side of the picture emerged. Photos started getting leaked. Now in one photo a couple is sitting in a car, and that photo was leaked. Now the question arises: if some person, some officer, who is authorized and whose domain this is, who has full authority, is sitting at that camera and monitoring, and that same person, misusing that same authority, just for fun, or to blackmail someone, or to defame someone, whatever the situation may be, makes that photo public, leaks it, then this is not only an immoral act on his part but also, legally, a crime. Now unfortunately, legally this crime falls within departmental jurisdiction, it's a crime within his official capacity. The public can complain to the department where that record is held, and this record was made public, and there's proof of it. If someone's photo, because what's the purpose? The whole purpose of this system is to control traffic and stop, or at least minimize, unwanted signal violations, the purpose is to monitor, so that if an incident occurs it gets monitored, that's the purpose. And if someone gains lawful access to it and, despite having that access, unlawfully makes that photo or video public for their own amusement, or to harass someone, or to blackmail someone, or to defame someone, this is a crime. Now how would it get into the public's hands? Now say a photo of mine was taken and made public, saying, sir, here's this thing, now I'm not being defamed by it, I'm not being blackmailed by it, I feel no pain from it, but what pains me is that this person had the authority to take my photo only to the extent of catching traffic violations. He took this photo of mine and made it public, he did wrong, I'll file an application with that department that whoever had access to this whole system, at such-and-such time I appear in this camera. I was passing by, my photo appeared on such-and-such media, on such-and-such social media, on such-and-such WhatsApp, I have proof of this. Why did it come out? This was not the purpose of this system, this whole mechanism. Departmental action will be taken against him, that he misused the access he had over the record, immorally, unlawfully, departmental action will be taken against him, the department will punish him departmentally, but there won't be independent criminal action against him. But if I've been defamed because of his act, or I'm being blackmailed because of his act, then the law allows me to take independent action against the department, and against the employee in that department who was sitting at that camera or that system at the time, or whoever leaked that photo or leaked that footage, independent action under defamation law. Now the question arises, what steps should I take to invoke defamation law? My steps would be to first file an application with the department, and if the department doesn't apologize, doesn't accept the legal notice, if it doesn't apologize, if the relevant person doesn't apologize, or if the department doesn't take any action against the relevant person, then I can invoke defamation law, either through the criminal route or through the civil route, both are available to me. Sections 499, 501 for criminal action, and under defamation law, or under defamation law I can also file a civil suit. Now what should we take from this? That no laws were formulated specifically aimed in one particular direction, where should we draw a benchmark from for this law? We should draw a benchmark from the Official Secrets Act 1923, under which the punishment for leaking ordinary data is two years, a fine, or both, but if that leak is against the honour of the state, and that leak is given to a foreign country, which is also our enemy, in order to destabilize our country, our forces, including all forces, regarding our own installations, then the punishment is death. Death, or a minimum of fourteen years' imprisonment. Now in this matter we should take a benchmark from there, that those too were official secrets, they were disclosed, and these were the punishments given. In this too, the current government should not be negligent, that if you're starting the Safe City Project, this too should be made clear in law, that defamation laws already exist, departmental action already exists, those are independent remedies, there should be a specific remedy that binds the officers or employees present in the department, that, sir, if you leak this information unlawfully or without cause, independent criminal action can be taken against you without any complaint. You could be punished, you could face imprisonment, a fine, or both. This doesn't exist, but the mechanism for taking action against them does exist, which I've told you about. I hope I have told you about this.