Panel to liaise with journalists on PECA law
LAHORE/ISLAMABAD:
The National Assembly's Standing Committee on Information and Broadcasting has decided to form a sub-committee to address concerns of the journalists regarding the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA).
The decision was announced during a committee meeting chaired by MNA Pullain Baloch.
Minister for Information and Broadcasting Atta Tarar said the Act is solely intended to regulate digital media and would not impact newspapers or television channels, as they are already governed by existing regulations.
Meanwhile, the Lahore High Court (LHC) has admitted for hearing another petition filed by the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) against some recent amendments to the country's cybercrime lawthe Prevention of Electronic Crime Act (PECA), 2016.
The journalistic organization — the PFUJhas also approached the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against the "draconian" amendments bulldozed through parliament last week.
LHC's Justice Farooq Haider on Thursday took up the petition for hearing and later issued notices to various respondents including the federal government.
The petition argued that the PECA (Amendment) Act, 2025 was passed after suspending the National Assembly rules. It said the bill was introduced without consultation with journalistic organizations and will severely impact the freedom of expression granted by the Constitution.
In its petition filed in the IHC through Advocate Imran Shafiq on Thursday, the PFUJ claims that the PECA (Amendment) Act, 2025 is an attack on press freedom.
It says that the amendment is unconstitutional and illegal, requiring judicial review.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
6 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Only 14% MNAs attend all sittings of 16th NA session
Two supplementary resolutions were adopted by the house which were about paying tributes to the sacrifices of the armed forces on Defence Day and condemning terrorism in Quetta and Mardan. PHOTO: FAFEN The 16th session of the National Assembly that spanned over 13 sittings between May 5 and 22, 2025, saw only 14% members making 100% attendance, while 9% of the members were absent during the entire session, the Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN) said in its report on Thursday. Fafen is a civil society network focused on strengthening democracy. It said in its latest report that consistent with the previous sessions, female attendance was generally higher than that of their male counterparts during the session last month. "The highest attendance was recorded during the first sitting, with 237 members (76%) present. During this sitting, the House suspended its regular agenda to discuss the recent Pakistan-India conflict," the report said. The lowest attendance was recorded during the last sitting, with 174 members (55%) present. This sitting was initially adjourned after just 13 minutes because of the lack of quorum. The House reconvened after 15 minutes and passed The Off the Grid (Captive Power Plants) Levy Bill, 2025. Fafen said that 150 members of the National Assembly (MNAs) skipped sittings without advance leave request; 118 (44%) submitted a leave application, including 25 (21%) in advance and 37 (31%) applied ex-post facto after returning from their leave. It added that 268 members (86%) missed at least one sitting during the current session. The report said that 16 female MNAs, including 14 on reserved seats, attended all the sittings, while five female MNAs, including two on the reserved seats, recorded zero attendance. Region-wise, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Islamabad Capital Territory lawmakers recorded the highest percentage of MNAs attending more than half of the sittings, it said, adding that majority of lawmakers from the SIC, the PML-N, the JUI, and independents attended more than half of the sittings. A lack of ministerial presence weakened legislative oversight, Fafen said in the report. Among the 29 federal ministers, who were expected to be present during the Question Hour to respond to queries from lawmakers, only 15 (52%) were marked present during the sittings.
Business Recorder
9 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Fixing budget to unleash growth
Every year, Pakistan's federal budget arrives with familiar choreography: a frantic scramble for revenue, a ritualistic promise of belt-tightening, a prayer for donor approval—and, inevitably, a deepening economic funk. The budget, instead of being a strategic tool to unleash growth and build reserves, has become a reactive exercise designed to appease creditors and perpetuate the status quo. This is not just a budgeting problem—it is a full-blown political economy failure. To break this cycle, we must fundamentally reimagine the budget—not as a ledger-balancing ritual, but as the central engine of economic revival through a sustained growth acceleration. Bloated government Pakistan's budget has historically expanded alongside a steady growth in government spending—starting with the welfare and development spree of the Bhutto years. Since then, successive governments have continued to bloat expenditures, expand political patronage networks, and indulge in borrowed vanity projects. Unsurprisingly, the lion's share of the budget is now devoured by a bloated and inefficient government machinery—ministries, SOEs, elite subsidies, and ever-growing civilian and military pensions. Development spending (PSDP) does not fare much better. It is either slashed mid-year or burned on politically motivated brick-and-mortar projects that neither raise productivity nor enhance exports. Numerous studies show that public investment in Pakistan is failing to crowd in private capital, generate jobs, or enhance competitiveness. No surprise, then, that economic growth has been on a steady downward slope this century. Don't tax the economy to death Maintaining the donor mantra that the 'tax-to-GDP ratio is low,' the IMF responds to our fiscal deficits by prescribing more and more taxes. When unrealistic revenue targets fall short, they roll out the usual remedy: 'further taxes,' 'additional taxes,' 'super taxes'—all piled on top of already over-taxed sectors in the infamous minibudget blitzes. The result? A regressive, volatile, and thoroughly anti-growth tax regime. Pakistan's real problem is not just low revenue—it is the structure of revenue—complicated, intrusive, and volatile. The consequence is a skewed, unjust, and investment-suppressing system. As deficits ballooned alongside unchecked political largesse, public debt skyrocketed past the 60 percent of GDP ceiling set by the 2003 Fiscal Responsibility Act—an IMF-sponsored law. Today, over 50 percent of the federal budget is consumed by interest payments. Yet both federal and provincial governments continue spending with abandon. Just in FY2025, they added over 60 new government agencies. Apparently, austerity is for textbooks — not our political class. A good budget To shift the budget toward growth, we must reframe our fiscal strategy around three core objectives: investment facilitation, economic restructuring, and foreign exchange generation. Our fiscal culture is rooted in control. Every economic activity is smothered in paperwork, redundant approvals, and bureaucratic misalignment. The budget must empower cities, universities, and private innovators—not just federal ministries. Local governments have been 'in the pipeline' for decades. While this issue lies beyond the immediate scope of the budget, it is crucial that administrative decentralization and institutional autonomy be pursued with proper performance checks and accountability frameworks. Perhaps the most urgent—and overdue—reform is the restructuring of the Planning Commission and the PSDP. The Haq/HAG model of brick-and-mortar development must evolve into a productivity-enhancing strategy. Let us transform the PSDP into a competitive grants framework—empowering cities and knowledge institutions to innovate, tied to clear outcomes in research, urban regeneration, and enterprise development. Likewise, the Planning Commission should be converted into a genuine reform engine—steering away from bloated plans and abstract visions that no one reads, let alone implements. And yes, this also means an end to discretionary funds and politically captive schemes. Enough random taxation The obsession with squeezing more out of the same tax base is strangling the economy. We need to broaden the base by simplifying, lowering, and stabilizing the tax structure—rather than repeatedly taxing the same goods and sectors into oblivion. As we outlined in the Haque Tax Commission Report of 2024: a) Simplify the tax code and reduce compliance burdens b) Replace withholding and turnover taxes with a value-added tax (VAT) system, with automatic and credible refunds c) Streamline documentation requirements for entering the tax system d) Broaden the base through digitization and administrative ease e) Most importantly, stop the frantic revenue drives that inject volatility, erode confidence, and drive away both domestic and foreign investment A good time to open the economy The relentless thirst for revenue has turned tariffs into a catch-all crutch—even exports now suffer because import duties are raising the cost of globally integrated inputs. Worse still, policy remains trapped in an outdated import-substitution mindset that rewards rent-seeking rather than export excellence. It is time for a bold pivot: abandon import substitution and stop using tariffs as a revenue crutch. Elementary economics teaches that tariffs are used to prevent a needed exchange rate adjustment. Tariffs can never be a competitive strategy. If we are serious about export-led growth—not just sloganeering—we must let the rupee find its true value, open the economy, and dismantle protectionist walls. Make the budget a living, transparent document For two decades, we have had a grand-sounding World Bank project—PIFRA ('Project to Improve Financial Reporting and Auditing')—with nothing to show. We still lack basic budget transparency. Follow the rest of the world and now adopt accrual-based budgeting across Pakistan. Here is a modest proposal for the finance minister: Make PIFRA live for public access this year. Put real-time dashboards online so citizens can trace every rupee spent. Growth is the only way out Our fiscal burden continues to grow as economic growth slows. The only way to break free from perpetual debt, IMF bailouts, and creeping default is through a sustained acceleration of private sector-led growth. This must be the cornerstone of budget policy: raise private investment from today's pitiful 8–9 percent of GDP to over 20 percent in five years. Deregulate. Open up. Simplify taxes and documentation. Build a performance-oriented public sector that enables growth—not one that chases after taxes with a club and spends the money on useless projects, bloated government, and patronage. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
9 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Amendments to orders for accuracy: Commissioner IR has powers under Sec 221(1) of IT law: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court ruled that the Commissioner Inland Revenue has jurisdiction under Section 221(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to amend the orders by rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. The 24-page judgment, authored by Justice Munib Akhtar, set aside the impugned judgments of the Lahore High Court (LHC) and the Islamabad High Court (IHC). It held; 'the tax references out of which these matters arise shall be deemed pending in the respective High Courts and the questions of law raised therein decided in accordance with law and consistently with this judgment.' Section 122 (5A) ITO: Power granted to IR commissioners is not without boundaries: ATIR 'CPLA 431-L/2023 involves questions of law other than the one decided by this judgment. This leave petition is returned to the office to be fixed in the ordinary course before an appropriate Bench,' it also said. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Munib Akhtar, and comprising Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Shahid Waheed heard the department (FBR) petitions against the LHC and IHC decisions. Babar Bilal appeared in CPLA Nos.4583 to 4585/2023. The judgment noted that the matters relating to the deemed assessment order (and indeed, the deemed amended assessment order) fall only and always within the first part (of Mehreen Zaibun Nisa), with all ensuing 'inevitable corollaries' applying accordingly. One of these is that the deemed orders of both kinds must be regarded as orders 'passed' by the Commissioner within the meaning, and for the purposes of, Section 221(1). 'The Commissioner therefore has the jurisdiction to amend the orders by rectifying any mistake apparent from the record'. The judgment decided the question; 'Whether the Commissioner has jurisdiction under subsection (1) of Section 221 of the 2001 Ordinance to amend, in exercise of the power thereby conferred and, in the manner, and to the extent therein stated, what is known as a deemed assessment order under s. 120 to rectify a mistake apparent from the record?', in favour of the Commissioner and against the taxpayers. The High Courts had answered the question in the negative. The Department urged that both the courts erred materially in this regard. The taxpayers pray that the impugned judgments be upheld as having reached the correct conclusion in law. The judgment confirmed that the error made by the High Courts was to conflate the two deeming provisions into one. It was on account of this mistake that both judgments, whose reasoning run in parallel, concluded that there was no application of mind by the Commissioner and that the mistake always lay where, and by whom, in fact made, i.e., the taxpayer. However, once this unfortunate fusing is unpacked, and what the subsection actually does and require is realized, the mistake becomes apparent. Had the subsection only contained the deeming required by clause (b), then there could be merit to what the learned High Courts concluded. In such a situation, the only 'state of affairs' required to be imagined would be the deemed issuance of an assessment order. It could perhaps then be said that the deeming did not reach or touch any mistake to be found as a matter of fact in the return, and hence the deemed assessment order did not deal with any such thing. In this situation the attribution of the mistake, being outside the scope (or beyond the limit) of the legal fiction could be said to lie where, and by whom, actually made as a matter of fact. But that of course is not the case. There is also the (precedent) deeming required by clause (a). Once that is kept in mind then the inevitable conclusion is that there was, as a matter of law, a (deemed) application of mind by the Commissioner. Since it operated (as it could only) on the return, an inevitable corollary is that it is the whole of it, mistakes and all, that is the assessment (deemed) to have been made. And it is the (deemed) assessment so made that then results in the (deemed) issuance of the assessment order. In our view, it is only in terms of this bifurcation that subsection (1) can be properly understood and applied. A rolling up of the two clauses into one, with respect, led to the error into which both the learned High Courts fell. Thus, in the principal LHC judgment much emphasis was placed on s. 221(1) requiring that the order be 'passed' by the Commissioner. The matters before the Supreme Court arose under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 in relation to the jurisdiction, under subsection (1) of Section 221, of the Commissioner to rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record and thereby amend what is known as a deemed assessment order under s. Most of these matters come from the Lahore High Court, where the principal judgment is dated 27.04.2022. That decision disposed of eight tax references that had been filed by the Commissioner and was followed in all the other matters in the said High Court by various orders of different dates. Islamabad High Court, where the principal judgment is dated 20.09.2023 which disposed of tax references filed by the Department. Both High Courts reached the same conclusion on the question now before the Court and therefore, all these matters were heard together and are being decided by this judgment. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
