PESHAWAR: A social media activist has moved the Peshawar High Court against the recent amendments to the cybercrime law, seeking to declare the government’s move unconstitutional.
In the petition, Anil Masih prayed the court to strike down the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, insisting that it is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
He requested the court to specifically declare unconstitutional Section 26(A) of the said Act, dealing with false and fake information, and related provisions as those were vague, arbitrary and violative of the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and due process.
The petitioner sought directives of the court for the respondents including federal interior ministry, Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) for not enforcing the provisions of the amendment Act till final disposal of the petition.
Activist claims govt move violates right to freedom of expression
He also sought interim relief from the court, requesting that registration of FIRs under the impugned Act may be halted.
The petition filed through Advocate Nouman Muhib Kakakhel included as respondents federal government through secretary of law and justice, secretaries of the ministries of interior and information and broadcasting, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government through its chief secretary, FIA director general, PTA chairman and Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority chairman.
The petitioner stated that he was social media influencer and was engaged in reporting on digital platform. He said that the impugned Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act was hastily introduced and approved by Senate and National Assembly in January this year with minimal parliamentary debate, bypassing meaningful consultation with stakeholders including journalists and civil society organisations.
He contended that through the impugned Act severe restrictions were imposed on fundamental freedoms including freedom of expression, privacy rights and due process, in violation of the Constitution of Pakistan and international human rights standards.
The petitioner stated that the amendments Act undermined democratic values by criminalising dissent, enabling state overreach and imposing disproportionate penalties for undefined and vague offenses related to digital expression and social media use.
He contended that the law granted excessive powers to regulatory authorities and suppressed independent journalism under the pretext of combating “false and fake information.”
The petitioner argued that the amendments infringed upon articles 4, 9, 10, 10-A, 19, 19-A, and 25 of the Constitution by restricting free speech, curbing press freedom and allowing for arbitrary prosecution of digital content creators.
He said that establishment of Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority (SMPRA), social media protection tribunals, and National Cybercrime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) consolidated unchecked executive control over digital expression, with no judicial oversight.
He stated that the investigatory powers under the amendment Act had been enhanced to an alarming degree, making previously bailable offences now non-bailable, cognisable and non-compoundable, which was in violation of established principles of legal fairness and due process.
The petitioner highlighted that Islam upheld the principles of justice, fairness and free speech, which the impugned Act directly contradicted.
Furthermore, he stated that Pakistan’s commitments under Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other global conventions were being disregarded.
He claimed that the impugned Act introduced broad definitions of “unlawful” and “offensive” content, creating legal uncertainty and fostering an environment of fear and self-censorship among journalists and activists.
The petitioner said that the unchecked power to block or remove online content and entire social media platform without judicial oversight constituted a violation of Article 10-A (right to fair trial) and Article 25 (equality before law) of the Constitution.
Published in Dawn, March 16th, 2025
