Pakistan today stands at the crossroads of security and liberty. The rapid expansion of surveillance technologies—camera networks, interception systems, and AI-enabled monitoring—has transformed the way governance and law enforcement operate. While these systems hold the promise of improved safety, they also raise constitutional questions of privacy, dignity, and the balance between collective security and individual rights.
The Constitution of 1973 enshrines rights that extend directly into this debate. Article 9 guarantees liberty, Article 14 protects privacy and dignity, and Article 10A affirms the right to due process. Pakistan’s courts have repeatedly underscored these protections. In Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan (1998), the Supreme Court ruled that unauthorised phone tapping was unconstitutional, requiring judicial oversight. More recently, in Muhammad Rehmatullah v. The State (2023), the Lahore High Court held that extracting data from a smartphone without a judicial warrant violated fundamental rights, equating digital privacy with the inviolability of one’s home. These rulings illustrate that constitutional principles apply as firmly in the digital sphere as they do in physical spaces.
Over the past decade, Pakistan has invested heavily in surveillance infrastructure. Punjab’s Safe Cities Authority operates more than 8,000 CCTV cameras in Lahore alone, integrated into command-and-control centres that manage real-time traffic, crime, and emergency responses. Similar systems are under development in Rawalpindi, Multan, and Karachi. These networks have assisted investigations, deterred street crime, and helped track missing persons.
Yet experience shows that technological expansion is not always smooth. The Islamabad–Peshawar Safe City Project came under scrutiny in 2012 when the Supreme Court raised concerns about procurement and oversight. Beyond the courts, the National Assembly’s Standing Committees have questioned the long-term cost sustainability of such projects, which require consistent upgrades, cybersecurity protections, and trained personnel. Surveillance, therefore, is not just about installation but governance, financing, and continuous monitoring.
An additional dimension is the admissibility of digital evidence in courts. The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016 gives investigative agencies authority to collect digital evidence, but questions remain about whether surveillance footage or intercepted communications meet the standards of due process. Courts have sometimes excluded evidence obtained without warrants, weakening prosecutions. Without harmonisation between surveillance practices and judicial standards, investments in technology risk losing effectiveness at trial.
The question, then, is not whether surveillance should exist; it already does, but under what framework it should operate
Alongside surveillance lies the issue of data. A Joint Investigation Team’s 2024 report revealed a major leak of sensitive citizen data from national databases, raising alarms about systemic vulnerabilities. In response, the federal government drafted the Personal Data Protection Bill, which proposes the creation of a National Commission for Personal Data Protection and significant penalties for misuse. As of early 2025, however, the law remains under parliamentary review. The absence of a binding framework leaves a gap between technology’s reach and the rights of citizens.
Globally, Pakistan is not alone in confronting this tension. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has become a benchmark for embedding privacy protections into law, while countries such as Singapore have coupled their safe-city programmes with regulatory checks. For Pakistan, adapting these lessons within its constitutional context may help balance public safety with accountability.
Citizens are not only concerned about the presence of surveillance but also about its use. Questions arise about who can access recordings, how long data is stored, and whether systems can be misused for political or personal ends. The effectiveness of surveillance rests as much on public trust as on technical capacity. Without transparency and legal clarity, surveillance risks being seen as a mechanism of control rather than protection.
Beyond the legal and constitutional domain, surveillance in Pakistan carries profound economic implications. Public investment in surveillance systems has grown steadily, with Punjab alone allocating billions of rupees to Safe City initiatives. In the 2025–26 federal budget, overall expenditure reached PKR 17.5 trillion, of which nearly half—around PKR 8.2 trillion—was earmarked for debt servicing, while defence received PKR 2.55 trillion, or about 15 per cent of total spending. Within this framework, billions of rupees continue to be directed towards law enforcement modernisation, including digital monitoring and AI-enabled security systems. Such expenditure reflects the priority placed on safety and order, but it also diverts resources from infrastructure and social services. The trade-off is not merely fiscal: it shapes the lived experience of citizens whose daily interactions with the state are increasingly mediated through technology.
The question, then, is not whether surveillance should exist; it already does, but under what framework it should operate. A balanced model would embed surveillance within constitutional safeguards, judicial oversight, and strong data protection laws. Pakistan has the legal foundation in its Constitution, evolving jurisprudence in its courts, and draft legislation in its Parliament. What remains is to weave these elements into a coherent structure where surveillance supports justice rather than substitutes it.
Safety and surveillance are not inherently at odds. When carefully governed, surveillance technologies can complement the justice system, strengthen security, and contribute to economic efficiency. Yet if left unchecked, they risk undermining the very liberties the Constitution seeks to protect. Pakistan’s challenge is to harness these tools within a transparent, accountable framework that ensures safety without eroding trust. The balance between security and freedom is delicate, but striking it is essential for a democratic society navigating the realities of the digital age.