PECA Amendment Act 2025: IHC asks petitioners to clarify changes
A single-judge bench of Justice Inam Amin Minhas, on Monday, heard multiple petitions seeking the annulment of the controversial Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) Amendment Act 2025.
Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), prominent TV anchors, and the IHC Journalists Association have challenged the amendments in the PECA.
PECA Act: Respondents asked to submit comments
During the proceeding, the federal government filed its written response before the court. The federation's counsel informed that the provincial governments have also been made respondents in the case. He told that an initial objection raised by the Registrar's Office had been removed.
The court directed the petitioners' lawyers to argue their case. PFUJ counsel Dr Yasir Aman Khan gave the historical perspective of the Act, 2025. Justice Minhas asked him to first provide the background so the court can understand the case.
Dr Yasir submitted that the PECA Act was introduced in 2016, adding that the 2025 Amendment removed several provisions from the original act and added new ones. He contended that Social Media Complaint Council has been set up under the Act, which has expanded its scope.
Justice Minhas told the petitioners' counsels to clarify the changes in the Code of Conduct, highlighting what it previously entailed and what has now been altered.
Under the new rules, individuals sharing expunged material from parliamentary or provincial assemblies on social media could face imprisonment of up to three years along with a fine of Rs2 million. It was informed to the Court that an atmosphere of harassment has been created in the media industry and the journalists are being summoned and harassed by the FIA.
The PFUJ petition said that the law infringed international human rights as well as digital rights in Pakistan. The petition read: '…a writ may be issued declaring that the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 is unconstitutional, being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, due process, fair trial, and the concept of regulatory independence, as well as the doctrines of fairness, proportionality, reasonableness, and constitutional limitations or restrictions, hence void, and liable to be struck down.'
Therefore, the PFUJ prayed that the respondents may be restrained and prevented from employing the coercive powers under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, in general, and against the journalist community, in particular till final disposal of the instant petition.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
16 hours ago
- Express Tribune
ATA rearmed with preventive detention clause
The National Assembly on Wednesday passed the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, 2024, granting military and civil armed forces the authority to place individuals facing terrorism charges under preventive detention for up to three months. The bill was moved by Minister of State for Interior and Narcotics Control Talal Chaudhry and sailed through clause-by-clause reading with a majority vote, rejecting amendments proposed by JUI-F's Aliya Kamran while incorporating an amendment suggested by PPP's Syed Naveed Qamar. Section 11EEEE of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), which allows preventive detention for questioning, was first inserted in 2014 after the Army Public School attack in Peshawar but lapsed in 2016 due to a sunset clause. The bill reintroduces these powers, enabling detention on the basis of credible information or reasonable suspicion to disrupt planned terrorist activities. The legislation also provides for the formation of Joint Interrogation Teams (JITs) comprising members of various law enforcement and intelligence agencies to conduct comprehensive inquiries and gather actionable intelligence. According to the statement of objects and reasons, the prevailing security situation "requires a robust response that goes beyond the existing legal framework" to equip the government, armed forces, and civil armed forces with the authority to detain individuals posing a significant threat to national security. Earlier, the House adopted the motion to take up the bill with 125 votes in favour and 59 against. According to a copy of the bill, in sub-section (1), the detention of a person arrested under Section 11EEEE, including detention exceeding three months, would be subject to the provisions of Article 10 (safeguards as to arrest and detention) of the Constitution. The bill outlined an amendment to sub-section (1) of Clause 2 of Section 11EEEE, which reads as follows: "The Government or, where the provisions of section 4 have been invoked, the armed forces or civil armed forces, as the case may be subject to the specific or general order of the Government in this regard, for a period not exceeding three months and after recording reasons thereof, issue order for the preventive detention of any person who has been concerned in any offence under this act relating to the security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, or public order relating to target killing, kidnapping for ransom, and extortion, bhatta, or the maintenance of supplies or services, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned, for purpose of inquiry." Meanwhile, in sub-section 2, the following amendments were proposed: "In sub-section (2), for the proviso, the following shall be substituted, namely: provided that where the detention order has been issued by the armed forces or civil armed forces under sub-section (1), the inquiry shall be conducted by the JIT comprising of a police officer not below the rank of superintendent of police, intelligence agencies, civil armed forces, armed forces, and other law enforcing agencies and for sub-section (2A), the following shall be substituted, namely: (2A) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall remain in force for a period of three years from the commencement of the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Act, 2025." The bill also incorporated an amendment to sub-section 2 Section 11EEEE (preventive detention for inquiry) of the ATA which would grant the armed forces or civil armed forces the power to arrest a "suspicious person" for three months. The amendment was moved by PPP MNA Naveed Qamar. "In clause 2, in paragraph (a), in section 11EEEE, in proposed sub-section (1), for the expression 'a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists', the expression 'sufficient grounds exist' shall be substituted," the amendment read. Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar said in the house that this law would only be used in specific situations. "A clause is being added to the bill stating that there are solid reasons for arrest," Tarar stated. "The arrested person will have to be presented before a magistrate within 24 hours [and] a clause has also been included to be enforceable for a specific period." Reacting to the passage of the motion to amend the ATA, PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan noted that a similar law was brought previously and branded it a violation of "fundamental human rights". "The Supreme Court said these laws were contrary to fundamental rights," Gohar said. "You cannot touch a single person in the world without a solid reason." PTI senior leader and former NA speaker Asad Qaiser assailed the bill and rejected it in his address. "A new legislation has been passed, where you can be kept in prison for months without permission," he stated. "These laws can be misused and will target political opponents." Qaiser stated that he only wanted peace and commerce in the country, warning that the Constitution was being "destroyed". Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman lamented that Pakistan's anti-terrorism legislation against corruption and mismanagement made every citizen "inherently criminals". "A person is first arrested and then later proven guilty. There is no room for such legislation in the world," he said. "Terrorism has not stopped. I cannot even return to my village now," he added. "A guest in our area was told that extremists are in control outside. Legislation has made no difference, as this parliament has no importance. They create laws based on signals." Two other bills — the National School of Public Policy (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the Petroleum (Amendment) Bill, 2025 — were also passed. These were moved by Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Dr Tariq Fazal Chaudhry and Minister for Petroleum Ali Pervaiz respectively. On the eve of Pakistan's 78th Independence Day, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution reaffirming its commitment to safeguarding the country's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence. Moved by Dr Tariq Fazal Chaudhry on behalf of all parliamentary parties, the resolution paid tribute to the struggle and sacrifices of the nation's forefathers under Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, culminating in the creation of an independent state on August 14, 1947. The House recognised the significance of the Markaa-e-Haq, a "glorious victory" of the valiant armed forces of Pakistan in repelling unprovoked Indian aggression, as well as the courage and professionalism of the security apparatus and civil heroes. It also recognised the unity and resilience of the people of Pakistan and paid homage to the martyrs and ghazis. Reaffirming Pakistan's resolve to pursue peace and friendly relations with all neighbours on the basis of equality, mutual respect, and non-interference, the resolution pledged to defend the country's sovereignty against any aggression and called upon all citizens to work collectively for Pakistan's unity, prosperity, and progress.
Business Recorder
17 hours ago
- Business Recorder
LHC issues detailed judgement in Bahria Town properties auction case
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) noted that the amendment in National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999 was made on 16-08-2022, while the plea bargain agreement was admittedly approved before the amendments in NAO, 1999, which is still in field. A division bench of the IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif, on Wednesday, issued detailed judgment of his order to turn down the petitions filed against the auction of Bahria Town properties. The judgment, authored by Justice Dogar, said convict/ Zain Malik kept returning the amount of plea bargain after the amendment in NAO. It concluded that prima facie, the convict malafidely discontinued the payment of remaining instalments in connivance with the surety on the pretext of amendment in order to refrain himself from returning the amount gained illegally. The court noted that as per Section 33E of the NAO, 1999 any fine or other sum due under this Ordinance, or as determined to be due by a Court shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. In this case admittedly, the determined amount has been approved by the Court, which is due against the petitioner being surety of the convict Zain Malik; therefore, the same can be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the NAB. The court noted that the record shows that Zain Malik was admittedly accused in three references and three investigations. He offered to return the illegal gains acquired by him in the commission of offence. The chairman NAB considered the offer of plea bargain along with affidavit of Zain Malik and determined his total joint liability of over Rs9 billion (Rs9,050,554,034) including the liability in reference No 02/2019. Zain Malik requested for payment in instalments, which was also considered by chairman NAB and accepted the offer of plea bargain. In this regard Rs1 billion was adjusted as down payment in six different cases, whereas, the remaining liability was agreed to be paid in three years. The statement of accused Zain Malik was recorded through Skype/ Video link facility from London, who was duly identified by his counsel. The statement of Col Khalilur Rehman (retired), vice Chief Executive of Bahria Town was also recorded, who acknowledged the sureties against the remaining liability in six different case including the reference No 02/2019. The judgment mentioned that on the application of respondent, the properties were attached vide orders dated 08.01.2024, 12.01.2024 and 19.01.2024 and the claim of the petitioner is that petitioner is independent juristic person and is not responsible for any act or deed of any of its shareholders and that it has never been an accused nor was declared proclaimed offender in reference No 19/ 2023 titled 'The State vs. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and others'; therefore, the properties, which are statedly belonging to the petitioner, could not have been attached by the Accountability Court-1, Islamabad. The judge observed that the Section 87 to 89 of the CrPC provide attachment of the property of an absconding accused as a coercive measure to compel his appearance. In this regard, as per Section 87 of the CrPC, when a court has reasons to believe that a person, against whom a warrant has been issued, is deliberately avoiding arrest, it may issue a proclamation requiring the accused to appear at a specified place and time. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
17 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Bahria Town auction: SC bench declines to hear case
ISLAMABAD: A bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, on Wednesday, declined to hear the case of auction of Bahria Town's properties. The chief justice sent the case back to a bench, which had previously heard the case. 'It would be appropriated for the old bench to hear this case,' CJP Afridi said. Farooq H Naek, representing Bahria Town, stated he has no objection if the matter is sent back to the old bench. He; however, told that detailed verdict of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has been announced, adding that he would submit additional objections on the detailed IHC verdict related to business tycoon Malik Riaz, who established the Bahria Town empire in Pakistan. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb on August 8, 2025, had turned down M/s Bahria Town (Private) Limited plea to halt the auction of its properties, but issued notices to the respondents. Justice Naeem questioned what the National Accountability Ordinance says about plea bargain. He noted that if an accused challenges the plea bargain process then it becomes inoperative, adding in the instant matter the accused has challenged the plea bargain, and the applications against them are pending, but the properties are being auctioned. Justice Naeem observed that instead of main petition only the Civil Miscellaneous Applications (CMAs) were fixed for hearing today (Friday), adding how come they can hear the CMAs without hearing the main petition. Naek told that he came to know about this case late at night, adding still the case is not issued on the cause list. The counsel stated thanks God that he was in Islamabad; therefore, appearing before the bench. The case was adjourned for an indefinite time period. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
