LHC Seeks Answers From Govt Over Unregulated Sale of Camera-Fitted Smart Glasses in Pakistan

A pair of glasses that looks like any other pair of glasses can now quietly film you, record your voice, and push the footage online before you notice anything unusual about the frames. That is the concern at the centre of a petition heard by the Lahore High Court on Monday, which has pulled Pakistan into a debate already unsettling courts and regulators from London to Wisconsin.

Chief Justice Aalia Neelum issued notices to the federal government, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, the Commerce Ministry, and other respondents, directing them to submit replies by October 8. The petition, filed by citizen Husnainul Abideen through advocate Shahram Saqi, challenges what it describes as the unregulated import and sale of camera- and microphone-equipped smart glasses across the country.

What the Petition Actually Argues

Saqi told the court that devices such as Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses are built to pass as ordinary eyewear while carrying the ability to photograph, record, and livestream anyone within the wearer’s field of view. That design choice, he argued, sets the product apart from a smartphone, which at least signals its presence when a camera is raised.

The petition frames this as more than a consumer-safety issue. It invokes Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution, which protect the right to life and liberty and the dignity of the individual, arguing that unrestricted circulation of covert recording devices erodes both.

Meta has not formally launched the product in Pakistan. Even so, the counsel told the court, the glasses are already available in Lahore’s electronics markets, including Hafeez Centre, a detail that turns an abstract policy question into a live enforcement gap.

A Global Pattern the Petition Leans On

Pakistan’s case did not emerge in isolation. Regulators in Ireland, Italy, and Germany have raised similar concerns about smart glasses, and courts in England, Wales, and New York have restricted their use inside courtrooms.

The pattern extends further than the petition itself cites. In the United States, courthouses in Wisconsin, Hawaii, and Colorado have introduced rules barring AI- and camera-enabled eyewear from their buildings, largely to stop witnesses and jurors from being secretly filmed and later identified outside court. Pennsylvania’s First Judicial District adopted a similar ban this year.

Britain has taken the debate to Parliament rather than leaving it to individual courts. In a Commons session earlier this month, ministers acknowledged that covert filming through smart glasses can fall under existing voyeurism law while also cautioning against restrictions that penalize the adaptive technology many visually impaired users rely on. German privacy regulators have flagged a related legal problem: smart glasses do not just process data about their wearer; they capture personal data belonging to everyone who walks into frame, without consent.

That last point is close to the core of the Lahore petition. Most privacy frameworks are built around a person’s control over their own information. Smart glasses complicate that by turning bystanders into subjects of recording they never agreed to and often cannot detect.

Where Pakistan’s Regulatory Gap Sits

Pakistan does not yet have a rule written specifically for camera-equipped eyewear. Devices generally reach consumers through the PTA’s broader import and type-approval process for telecom and IT equipment, a framework not designed with a smartphone-in-glasses hybrid in mind.

That gap is precisely what the petition is trying to force into the open. Rather than asking the court to rule on a single confiscated device, it asks for the entire import and retail chain to be examined: customs clearance, PTA approval status, and retail sale.

The specific reliefs sought include a declaration that unrestricted use of such glasses is incompatible with the Constitution, a halt to imports, a review of any PTA approvals already granted, a ban on the devices in courts, airports, and government buildings, a stop to customs clearance of new consignments, and a directive requiring Pakistan’s cybercrime agency to disclose complaints it has received related to the devices.

That last demand is notable. It would make public, for the first time, how many people have already reported being filmed or recorded without consent by this category of device, turning an anecdotal concern into documented evidence the court can weigh.

National Security Framing Adds Weight

The petition does not rest solely on individual privacy. It also raises national security concerns, arguing that discreet recording and livestreaming capability near sensitive installations or gatherings could be exploited in ways ordinary smartphone use is easier to monitor and restrict.

Courts elsewhere have tended to treat smart glasses as primarily a privacy and evidentiary problem. Framing it also as a security question gives the Lahore petition a broader base to argue from and may explain why the bench chose to issue notices rather than dismiss it as a narrow consumer complaint.

What Comes Next

The respondents now have until October 8 to file replies. Their submissions will need to address not just whether these devices are currently regulated, but whether Pakistan’s existing telecom import framework is even equipped to regulate a product category that did not exist when most of those rules were written.

The Bigger Picture

What makes this case worth watching is the point in the supply chain where it intervenes. Most jurisdictions dealing with smart glasses have reached for narrow, reactive fixes: a courtroom ban here, a voyeurism prosecution there. The Lahore petition instead asks the court to examine the problem at the border, before the devices reach retail shelves at all.

That approach could produce a broader outcome than a single-venue restriction, but it also asks more of the court and the regulators named in the notices. Import policy, telecom certification, and criminal privacy law rarely sit under one authority, and untangling which agency should own device-level privacy risk is likely to be the harder question the October hearing has to confront.