The Islamabad High Court (IHC) is currently deliberating a petition filed by the Anchors Association—led by prominent journalists seeking to repeal the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2025. While the petitioners frame their challenge as a defence of press freedom and constitutional rights, a closer examination reveals a troubling resistance to accountability in Pakistan’s digital landscape. This article dissects the motivations behind the opposition to PECA 2025, contextualizes the law’s necessity, and underscores the risks of unchecked digital anarchy.
The Anchors Association’s petition alleges that PECA 2025 violates constitutional free speech and due process guarantees. However, this challenge is part of a broader pattern: similar petitions have been lodged in the Supreme Court, Sindh High Court, and Lahore High Court, all echoing claims of constitutional overreach. For instance, a citizen’s petition in Supreme Court argues that the law is “ultra vires” to legislative authority, while journalist bodies like the PFUJ decry its “draconian” penalties. These coordinated efforts suggest a systemic pushback against regulations threatening vested interests accustomed to operating without oversight.
Critically, PECA 2025’s provisions—such as criminalizing “fake news” with up to three years imprisonment or fines of Rs2 million—are not unique. They align with global frameworks like Germany’s NetzDG and Singapore’s POFMA, which balance free expression with accountability for harmful disinformation. The petitioners’ failure to engage with these international precedents undermines their narrative of constitutional exceptionalism.
The amendments to PECA address urgent threats in Pakistan’s cyber ecosystem. Section 26A explicitly targets fabricated content to incite fear, panic, or unrest, requiring proof that perpetrators ‘knowingly’ spread falsehoods. This specificity counters vagueness claims, as the law mandates intent and demonstrable harm. Additionally, the creation of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) and Social Media Protection Tribunal replaces outdated mechanisms with specialized bodies equipped to handle cybercrimes efficiently. Cases must be resolved within 90 days, ensuring swift justice. Furthermore, the law mandates that social media platforms like Facebook and X register with the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority (SMPRA), holding them accountable for harmful content disseminated on their platforms.
The opposition to PECA 2025 often conflates regulation with censorship, framing the law as an existential threat to press freedom. However, this narrative ignores the law’s safeguards, such as judicial oversight and evidence-based prosecution requirements. The petitioners’ resistance appears less about protecting constitutional rights and more about shielding themselves from accountability in an era where digital misinformation has become a weapon of choice for political and personal vendettas.
The global context underscores the necessity of PECA 2025. From the United States to the European Union, nations enact stringent laws to combat digital disinformation, recognizing its potential to destabilize societies. Pakistan’s efforts to modernize its cyber governance framework are not only timely but essential in an age where misinformation can incite violence, manipulate elections, and erode public trust.
The judiciary’s role in this debate is pivotal. Its decision will determine whether Pakistan moves toward a structured, accountable digital environment or remains mired in an era where unverified claims and deceptive reporting dictate public discourse. The battle over PECA 2025 is not about press freedom but ensuring that journalists, influencers, and all digital actors are held to the same ethical standards as professionals in other fields. It is about protecting society from those who seek to use digital platforms as weapons of misinformation rather than as tools for responsible communication.
The opposition to PECA 2025 exposes a deeper issue: an aversion to the rule of law among those who benefit from digital anarchy. A civilized society thrives on accountability, and those who reject such measures are, in effect, defending digital lawlessness. It is crucial for Pakistan to move forward with a framework that ensures digital spaces are not misused for personal or political gain but serve as platforms for responsible discourse. The petition against PECA 2025 is nothing more than an effort to dismantle essential safeguards, and the judiciary must recognize the bad faith behind these attempts. The future of Pakistan’s digital space depends on the enforcement of strong, necessary laws that protect its citizens from the unchecked dangers of misinformation and cyber manipulation.
