ISLAMABAD/KARACHI: As the Sindh High Court (SHC) directed that petitions against recent amendments to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) be heard by its Constitutional Bench, legal and media representatives urged the federal government to repeal the controversial changes immediately.
At a consultative meeting organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on Monday, lawyers and journalists called for an end to restrictions on independent journalism. A unanimous resolution passed at the meeting emphasized that freedom of expression is fundamental to democracy and must be protected.
Participants condemned the Peca (Amendment) Act, 2025, calling it flawed legislation that violates Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. They argued that it also contradicts Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Pakistan is a signatory.
The amendments were criticized for undermining constitutional rights, violating natural justice principles, and conflicting with Articles 4, 9, and 10-A, which ensure due process and a fair trial. The meeting also found certain clauses vague, with terms like “false” and “fake” lacking clear definitions. Additionally, concerns were raised over the broad interpretation of “any person/individual” and the ambiguity regarding the location of offences, potentially allowing multiple FIRs for a single incident.
Participants stressed the need for independent judicial oversight free from executive influence and reaffirmed their support for independent journalism. They warned that media censorship and digital restrictions threaten democratic values, transparency, and civil rights.
SHC Observations
Meanwhile, a two-judge SHC bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Mohammad Junaid Ghaffar, heard petitions challenging the Peca amendments. The court observed that such cases fall under the jurisdiction of its Constitutional Bench.
Petitioners, including journalists and vloggers, have asked the court to strike down the amendments as unconstitutional, arguing that they infringe upon freedom of speech and press rights. While the petitioners’ lawyers argued that a regular bench could hear the case, the court maintained that a constitutional bench must decide the matter.
The respondents have sought more time to submit their responses.
