Print and electronic media organisations and human rights groups have strongly opposed the recent amendments to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, calling them a serious threat to freedom of expression.
Undoubtedly, in the digital age, laws and regulations are necessary to govern online interactions. While modern states recognise the advantages of the cyber world, they are also aware of its potential to infringe upon individual rights. Consequently, cyber laws have evolved to mitigate these risks. However, democratic nations strive to ensure that such laws align with human rights standards and do not shield governments from public criticism.
Pakistan's efforts to prevent digital crimes culminated in PECA 2016. The Act defines various offences, including unauthorised access to data and information systems, cyber terrorism and online hate speech. Some key definitions include:
Access to data: Gaining control or the ability to use, copy, modify or delete data within a system.
Access to an information system: Gaining control over part or all of a system, even if security measures are bypassed.
Dishonest intention: Any intent to cause harm, incite violence or create hatred.
Offence: Any punishable act under PECA, except when committed by minors under 14 who lack the maturity to understand the consequences.
The Act criminalises the glorification of terrorism, proscribed organisations or convicted terrorists. Convictions carry penalties of up to seven years in prison, fines of up to Rs10 million, or both. Cyberterrorism - offenses committed with the intent to intimidate, spread fear, incite sectarian hatred or promote proscribed groups - can lead to 14 years in prison, fines of up to Rs50 million, or both.
Additionally, using digital platforms for hate speech, terrorist recruitment or funding terrorism is punishable by up to seven years in prison, fines, or both.
Other offences include unauthorised access to critical information systems (up to three years in prison, Rs1 million fine, or both); and disrupting critical systems with fraudulent intent (up to seven years in prison, Rs10 million fine, or both).
While PECA 2016 was initially seen as a positive step for cybersecurity and crime prevention, recent amendments have sparked outrage, with critics arguing that they curtail fundamental rights and suppress dissent.
The new amendments introduce nine additional definitions, significantly broadening the scope of the law. Among these, three key terms have raised concerns:
Aspersion has been defined in a way that equates it with defamation, making criticism potentially criminal.
Complainant - Expanded to include non-victims, allowing anyone to file complaints, increasing the risk of abuse.
Social Media Platform — now includes both individuals and corporate entities, implying that content creators, website owners and even service providers may be held criminally liable.
This expanded definition of social media platforms raises critical legal questions regarding liability — including whether platform owners, hosts and intermediaries can be prosecuted for user-generated content.
The 2025 amendments establish the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority (SMPRA), which introduces a mandatory enlistment system for social media platforms. The authority is empowered to: issue directions to remove or block content related to violence, pornography or other prohibited materials; and enforce a complaint redress mechanism within each platform.
In addition, a five-member Social Media Complaint Council (SMCC), appointed by the federal government, will handle public complaints regarding PECA violations.
Furthermore, the amendments propose replacing FIA and police with a new National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA). This move removes police jurisdiction over cybercrimes, potentially weakening law enforcement's ability to combat organised crime and terrorism.
Perhaps the most controversial change is the criminalisation of false and fake information - without providing a clear legal definition of what constitutes "false information". Critics argue that this provision is vulnerable to misuse, particularly against journalists, activists and individuals with dissenting views on national and international matters. This could result in a significant erosion of fundamental rights, particularly freedom of speech and expression.
The PECA amendments mark a significant shift in Pakistan's approach to cyber regulations. While national security and online safety are legitimate concerns, the vague and broadly defined provisions in these amendments pose serious risks to freedom of expression and democratic accountability. Without clear safeguards against misuse, these changes may serve as a tool for suppression rather than protection.
Given the strong backlash from media organisations, digital rights activists and civil society, it remains to be seen whether these amendments will withstand legal and public challenge or they will ultimately tighten the noose around free speech in Pakistan.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ