KARACHI: The proposed amendments to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca), 2016 have drawn sharp criticism from legal and digital rightsa experts, who warn they could curtail free speech, empower state agencies to stifle dissent, and erode judicial oversight. The amendments have also sparked fears of arbitrary enforcement and a chilling effect on social media. Critics argue the changes, which bypass high courts and concentrate power in government-appointed tribunals, undermine fundamental rights.
On Wednesday, the federal government introduced amendments to the Peca law, reducing the jail term for “intentionally disseminating false and fake information” from seven to three years. Titled ‘The Prevention of Electronic CrimesAmendment) Bill, 2025’, the proposed bill includes new definitions, the creation of regulatory and investigative bodies, and stricter penalties for spreading ‘false’ information.
Lawyer, digital rights activist and executive director of the Digital Rights Foundation Nighat Dad talks to The News regarding this latest bout of Peca amendments: “Since 2016, people have made robust critiques regarding Peca and given evidence on how the law has been and can be misused. Now, the government has come up with these latest amendments -- but they have done this without consulting those who have been involved in implementing and dealing with the consequences of Peca”.
Dad says there is a lot to unpack in the amendment but at first glance, “they have used the word ‘fake news’ a lot and they have tried to define it but to be honest no reliable body around the world has come up with a definition of fake news because its generally arbitrary and depends on perceptions”.
She points out though that the amendments do use the term ‘unlawful and illegal content’, revealing that “they have pretty much copy-pasted how they have defined ‘terrorism’ in the anti-terror law. This is scary; there is such a high threshold in the anti-terror law. But in equating terror with ‘unlawful content’, they are lowering the threshold”.
Everything that has been happening in the past few years including what was proposed during Imran Khan’s government is now being proposed in this bill, says Dad who concludes that “this means they [the government] are legalising arbitrary decisions being taken by agencies like the FIA etc”.
Another important point, says Dad, is that “if the tribunal’s decision has to be challenged that will directly go to the Supreme Court. So they’ve taken out one whole step -- high courts -- from the process”.
For a longer view regarding the legal side to the proposed law, we asked Barrister Ali Tahir for his opinion. First off, says Tahir, “this might just be the longest yet most archaic amendment in the history of Peca”. He also adds that “many things the federal government was previously unable to do will now be carried out under this amendment to control social media”.
But what exactly is the law proposing? Barrister Tahir says that under the proposed bill, four new types of authorities have been introduced. The first is a Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority, followed by a National Cybercrime Investigation Authority, then a Social Media Complaint Council, and finally, a Special Tribunal, named the Social Media Protection Tribunal, whose appeals will directly go to the Supreme Court.
Tahir explains that under the amendment “social media platforms will now need to obtain an enlistment, and in doing so, they will have to comply with certain conditions imposed by the Pakistani government. If they fail to meet these conditions, they can be blocked”.
He also points out how the high courts seem to have been completely removed from this process, “leaving a Special Tribunal -- whose members will be appointed by the government -- to oversee all social media matters”. Pointing out that practising lawyers widely believe the FIA’s cybercrime wing has been inefficient, Tahir warns that “now any social media user will think ten times before expressing their opinion, knowing that they could face attacks from not one but four different institutions, and trouble will come from all directions. This is called a chilling effect on free speech”.
New offences have also been introduced, one of which is an offence referred to as ‘aspersion’ in the proposed amendment bill. Under this, explains Barrister Tahir, “anyone can be prosecuted for spreading false information” about certain entities. When asked about the process of determining the veracity of the allegations, Tahir says that this determination will now be made by a new tribunal, consisting of only one judicial member appointed by the government, alongside either a journalist or a software engineer. He asks: “How will such a tribunal protect fundamental rights, and how can it even be considered a judicial tribunal? If it is not a judicial tribunal, how can it decide matters of punishment and accountability?”
Essentially, says Tahir, “it is evident that this law has been drafted to control social media, which at present is one of the biggest challenges for the government”. However, he feels that the law is “unconstitutional and even if enacted, will immediately be challenged in the high court. I doubt that its validity will be upheld”.
The News also spoke with Usama Khilji, the director of digital rights advocacy organisation Bolo Bhi. Khilji sums up the proposed amendment as one that “makes a bad law worse”. When asked how, he says the amendment “further criminalises speech by defining ‘false information’ broadly” and then also stipulates three years in jail for its dissemination, which he says is disproportionate if we go by Pakistan’s international human rights commitments. Not just that, he also agrees with Nighat Dad’s concerns and says the law “legalises a lot of the illegal practices that the state has been employing to clamp down on the right to freedom of speech and association”.
The proposed law will also end up giving impunity to state functionaries who are supposed to be held accountable by taxpayers and the media since it has a free hand in “deeming content on social media that ‘casts aspersions on members of judiciary, parliament, or armed forces’”, adds Khilji. If the amendment were passed, he fears further persecution of journalists and social media, though he also feels that “an independent judiciary would certainly strike it down”.
In her comments on Geo’s Report Card, lawyer Reema Omer had said on Wednesday evening that the proposed amendment is a “significant and far-reaching piece of legislation” which ought to only be passed with sufficient and detailed consultation with all stakeholders. Some of the issues pointed out by Omer included the fact that the language and terms used in the proposed bill are very broad, the punishment of up to three years for fake news is excessive, and that judicial involvement is negligible in the authorities proposed by the bill.