A Karachi sessions court has restricted banks and other financial institutions from using police and Safe City resources to identify, trace, intercept or recover vehicles belonging to customers who have defaulted on financing arrangements, unless such assistance is permitted under applicable law. The court issued the directions while deciding a plea that sought registration of a First Information Report (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. The case involved allegations that surveillance cameras and information available through the Safe City system were being used to locate vehicles associated with customers who had defaulted on their financial obligations.
The court rejected the request for an FIR against the bank officials but issued directions concerning the use of police and Safe City infrastructure by private financial institutions. It instructed the Sindh police chief to ensure that police personnel do not provide assistance to the bank or any other financial institution for identifying, locating, intercepting or recovering defaulted vehicles unless such action is authorised by law and falls within the powers granted under relevant statutory provisions. The directions place emphasis on the legal basis for using government surveillance infrastructure when private institutions seek assistance in recovering financed assets.
The court also directed the Deputy Inspector General of Information Technology and the Director General of the Safe City Project in Karachi to ensure that surveillance, tracking and location information is provided to a financial institution, its designated focal person or any private individual only where such access is authorised by law, supported by lawful process or approved by a competent authority with jurisdiction. The order further clarified that a private focal person nominated by a bank cannot be provided independent or unrestricted access to police databases or Safe City systems. Where coordination or access is legally permitted, it must remain subject to the authorisation, supervision and safeguards established by the competent authority and applicable legal requirements.
The court clarified that the restrictions do not prevent police from taking action in circumstances where a cognizable offence has been disclosed or where a vehicle is required in connection with a lawful criminal investigation. Police can also proceed with seizure, recovery or other forms of assistance when such action is authorised under the law or directed by a competent court or other authorised authority. This distinction means that the order does not prevent lawful investigations or recovery operations, but instead requires the use of surveillance and tracking systems to remain within the authority provided by law.
The judge also directed the police to submit a compliance report within 15 days. The report is required to identify the legal or statutory basis under which police and Safe City resources are being used to identify or trace defaulted vehicles. It must also provide details of the relevant rules, standard operating procedures or other competent authorisations governing such use, along with instructions issued in response to the court’s order. The requirement for a compliance report places the focus on documenting the authority and procedures under which government surveillance infrastructure may be accessed for vehicle recovery activities.
The proceedings originated from an application filed by a citizen named Imran under Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant sought registration of an FIR against the proposed accused and alleged that the bank was using Safe City cameras and information from the system for private and commercial purposes, particularly for monitoring and tracing vehicles associated with customers who had defaulted. According to the application, the alleged use of surveillance infrastructure raised concerns involving the privacy and property rights of citizens.
The applicant maintained that surveillance and vehicle tracing should only be conducted by competent government agencies in accordance with applicable law and for lawful purposes. The court’s written order considered the relationship between a financial institution’s recovery rights and the methods used to locate financed vehicles. It observed that a financial institution’s statutory right to recover an outstanding amount or financed asset does not automatically make every method of locating, tracing or taking possession of a vehicle lawful.
At the same time, the court noted that a private bank’s request for police assistance does not, by itself, establish that the assistance is unlawful. The legality of such assistance depends on the authority under which it is provided and the applicable legal framework. The directions therefore establish that access to police and Safe City surveillance resources must be tied to lawful authority, appropriate oversight and established procedures, particularly when the information is being sought by private financial institutions for recovery purposes.
The case highlights the regulatory questions surrounding the use of government-operated surveillance infrastructure by private entities, particularly banks seeking to recover financed vehicles from customers in default. The court’s directions require police and Safe City officials to establish the legal basis for such access while preserving the ability of law-enforcement agencies to act in cases involving criminal investigations or other actions specifically authorised by law or a competent authority.
Follow the PakBanker Whatsapp Channel for updates across Pakistan’s banking ecosystem.