The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday sought the assistance of Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan on a petition filed by journalists’ bodies challenging recent changes to the country’s cybercrime laws.

New provisions enacted last month through the Preven­tion of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act (Peca), 2025 introduce harsher penalties for what the government considers “fake news”, the expansion of state oversight of digital platforms, and the creation of new regulatory bodies to monitor social media.

Journalists have assailed the legislation as an “attack on freedom of expression”, while the opposition PTI has also vociferously protested the legislation’s rushed passage in the parliament. Concerns have also been raised by Amnesty International, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, digital rights activists as well as the European Union.

Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas took up a petition today filed last week by a faction of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ).

Advocate Imran Shafique appeared on behalf of the journalists’ union while IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) President Riasat Ali Azad was also present.

In its petition, the PFUJ argued that the Peca amendments violated fundamental constitutional rights, particularly freedom of expression, press freedom and due process.

The petitioner contended that several provisions of the amended law were overly broad, vague and prone to arbitrary enforcement, posing a threat to civil liberties.

Key objections included the ambiguous definition of “social media platforms”, which could be applied to various online services, and provisions regulating “unlawful and offensive” content, which are considered subjective and open to misuse.

Renowned television anchors also approached the IHC on Friday against the changes to Peca laws, seeking to have it declared null and void.

Their petition also echoed the concerns raised by the PFUJ in its plea, including violation of fundamental rights. It contended that the amendments granted excessive powers to authorities, potentially leading to censorship and suppression of journalistic independence.

The hearing

At the outset of the hearing, Advocate Shafique argued that the provisions in the amendment were formulated in such a hurry that even the numbers of the clauses were stated incorrectly.

“There are so many mistakes in the law that two definitions of ‘petitioner’ have been given,” he said, adding that both were contradictory.

The lawyer further said that the Social Media Complaint Council created under the Peca amendment was identical to an existing one under the Pemra Ordinance 2002.

Here, IHCBA president Azad contended that the law was made in violation of Articles 19 (freedom of speech, etc) and 19A (right to information).

Justice Minhas then questioned the lawyers about fake news. “Do you think the publication of fake news should be stopped or not?”

“The problem of fake news does exist,” he remarked.

Azad highlighted that under the Peca amendments, an appeal against a decision made by the Social Media Protection Tribunal could only be filed “directly in the Supreme Court” rather than a high court first hearing it.

Stating that there was no consultation with the stakeholders, he contended that the new provisions were compelling journalists to reveal their sources.

“A journalist gets reports from their sources. If they cannot get the information, then they will be left reporting the weather only,” Azad quipped.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel repeatedly requested the judge to issue a stay order on the implementation of the recent changes to the Peca law. However, Justice Minhas suggested that the petitioner file a separate miscellaneous application for it.

“If there is any issue, then let us know. We are present here,” the judge said.

Justice Minhas then issued a notice to AGP Awan, seeking his assistance in the case. Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned indefinitely.