THERE is little disagreement that Punjab needs stronger tools to combat organised crime, habitual offenders and threats to public order. But giving the state more power should also mean providing stronger safeguards for citizens. The proposed Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, 2026, does not appear to strike that balance. Expected to clear the Punjab Assembly after passing the Standing Committee on Law, the bill has attracted concern not only because of the powers it grants but also because it was advanced without the Speaker’s knowledge. His warning that the legislation echoes colonial-era laws should give lawmakers reason to pause before approving a measure that expands executive authority while offering limited independent oversight. Such a law deserves thorough scrutiny, especially when it gives the state greater authority over liberty, property and privacy.

The bill would create intelligence committees at the provincial, divisional and district levels to deal with ‘anti-social behaviour’. Acting on police reports, intelligence reports or even written complaints, the committees could order measures such as surety bonds, freezing bank accounts, blocking CNICs, confiscating electronic devices, removing a person’s online presence and placing individuals under technological surveillance. Their proceedings would remain confidential and would be presumed to have been conducted in good faith unless proven otherwise. The definition of anti-social behaviour is also remarkably broad. Alongside organised crime and drug offences are acts such as using abusive language, spreading misinformation and causing public annoyance. District intelligence committees would even have the power to classify additional activities as anti-social in future. Although a magistrate must declare someone a habitual offender before electronic monitoring can be imposed, many restrictions could begin much earlier through executive action, with appeals passing through several official committees before reaching an independent tribunal. We certainly need more effective ways to deal with repeat offenders. But stronger policing should not come at the expense of due process. Before passing this legislation, the Punjab Assembly should narrow its broad definitions, strengthen judicial oversight and ensure that intrusive measures affecting liberty, property and privacy are subject to meaningful legal scrutiny. The challenge is ensuring that in tackling crime, the law protects citizens’ rights as carefully as it seeks to protect public order.

Published in Dawn, June 30th, 2026