KARACHI: A sessions court on Wednesday directed the inspector general of police (IGP) and the director general of the Safe City Authority to ensure that police would not use its surveillance network to extend assistance to any private bank or any other financial institution for the “identification, tracing, interception or recovery of financed/defaulted vehicles”.

The direction was issued by Additional District and Sessions Judge (South) Irshad Hussain while dismissing an application filed by a person named Imran, seeking registration of an FIR against private bank officials for allegedly using public machinery for surveillance and tracing of vehicles belonging to their defaulting customers.

According to the applicant, such use of public resources infringes upon his privacy and property rights protected under the law.

After hearing arguments from all sides and examining the record, the judge issued detailed directions, ordering the Sindh police chief to ensure that no assistance was extended by police authorities to any private bank or other financial institution for the “identification, tracing, interception or recovery of financed/defaulted vehicles except in accordance with the applicable law and within the authority conferred by the relevant statutory provisions”.

Court dismisses plea for FIR against bank officials using public resources to trace vehicles

He also directed the DIG Information Technology and the DG of the Safe City Project to ensure that “any provision or disclosure of surveillance, tracking or location information to a financial institution, its focal person or any private person is made only where such disclosure is authorised by law, lawful process or a competent authority having jurisdiction”.

The judge further directed that no focal person nominated by any private bank or financial institution be “permitted independent or unrestricted access to police or Safe City systems”.

“Any coordination or access, where otherwise legally permissible, shall remain subject to the authorisation, supervision and safeguards prescribed by the competent authority and applicable law,” the judge added.

The court also clarified that the directions would not “prevent the police from taking lawful action where a cognisable offence is disclosed, where a vehicle is required in connection with a lawful criminal investigation, or where seizure, recovery or police assistance is otherwise authorised under law or by a competent court/authority”.

It further stated that the directions did not curtail the statutory or contractual rights of private banks to recover their dues or financed property in accordance with the law.

The banks, it added, would remain at liberty to avail themselves of any remedy available before the competent forum.

The court also directed the police authorities concerned to submit a compliance report within 15 days, specifically indicating the legal or statutory basis, applicable rules or standard operating procedures, and any other competent authorisation under which assistance through police or Safe City resources was being extended for the identification or tracing of defaulted vehicles.

The court observed that asper record, a private bank had requested assistance from senior police authorities for the identification and tracking of its defaulted vehicles, adding that the information was forwarded to the authorities concerned for tracing the vehicles through the Safe City system.

However, it added that despite the extensive correspondence placed on record by the respondents, they could not place before the court any specific Act, rule, regulation, notification, SOP, MOU, delegation or other legal instrument expressly demonstrating the precise authority under which the Safe City system and its surveillance and location capabilities were made available for tracing vehicles at the request of a private bank for recovery of financing dues.

“Nevertheless, where the police or Safe City authorities provide surveillance, tracking or location information to a private financial institution merely on the basis of an administrative request, without demonstrating the statutory or regulatory authority under which such disclosure and assistance are permissible, such exercise of public resources requires justification and cannot be treated as self-authorising,” the judge observed.

Published in Dawn, September 24th, 2026