The speedy enactment of the Prevention of Electronic Crime (Amendment) Act 2025 from the Parliament of Pakistan 2025 unfolded many tales. This Act, in its object and purposes, states the formation of the Digital Rights Protection Authority (DRPA) to curb the prevalent issue of cybercrime. While the Act is silent on the formation of DRPA, it establishes three major authorities for this end, i.e., Social Media Complaint Council, Social Media Protection Tribunal, and Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority.
The first part of the amendment Act deals with the establishment of the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority. The authority consists of a chairman and eight members. Among these members, six will be appointed by the Federal Government. As per Section 2R, the authority has the power to remove and block online content that is false, fake, or contains aspersions against members of Parliament and the National Assembly. The extensive power of direction and appointment given to the government raises questions on the independence of the tribunal and the danger of its use against the opposition and critics.
The word ‘aspersion’ has been defined by Section 2 (iii)(a) as spreading false and harmful information which damages the reputation of a person. Such aspersions have also been defined in the Defamation Ordinance 2002 and provincial defamation laws. As per the Ordinance, defamation is to be tried in the District Courts. Hence, there seems to be no reason for making an additional tribunal but to make members of Parliament, Judges, and Officers of the Armed Forces special beings and a special tribunal for that matter. Secondly, the idea of making the Criminal Tribunal for the offence that has always been tried in the Civil Court also highlights the underlying intent.
Additionally, the words ‘false and fake’ have not been defined in the Amendment Act, leaving it on the whims of the tribunal to decide the authenticity of digital speech. The Act also prohibits speech against the ideology of Pakistan. While the ideology is a sacred part of any nation, what ideology is again is not defined in clear terms by the PECA Amendment Act 2025.
The Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority has been created, having the power to enlist and take down unlawful content from social media. However, the actions of the Social Media Regulatory Authority violate the constitutional principle of fair trial as it doesn’t point towards hearing the author of the content before blocking it. The principle of ‘audi alteram partem’ is recognized not only in Pakistan but also in foreign jurisdictions like the US, UK, and Australia. This legal phrase means ‘no one should be condemned unheard’. The actions of any legal authority against a person without giving him a show cause, especially when the constitutional right of ‘Free Speech’ has been involved, are surely against the right to due process and fair trial.
Section 2T of the amendment Act creates the Social Media Complaint Council. Section 2T (1) highlights that the Council will receive and process the complaint for violations against the provisions of the amendment act. The amendment is silent as to the reason for the creation of the council, the procedure for receiving complaints, and what the rules are or the time limit for the Complaint Council to process the complaint. The duty to process the complaint becomes more erroneous when the amendment doesn’t highlight the powers of the Complaint Council.
The amendment Act further forms the Social Media Protection Tribunal. The composition of the tribunal consists of an Advocate who is competent enough to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court. For this reason, the appeal from the order of this tribunal is only possible in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. This goes against the principle of internal harmony with the other pre-amendment part of the Act. Under PECA, the High Court has appointed special Session Courts in the District and Session Division. Now, certain matters under Section 21, 22, and Section 24 under PECA are heard and dealt with by the Session Courts, allowing for appeal in the High Court. However, the offences which will be tried under the Amendment Act 2025 will be appealed only in the Supreme Court. This makes the High Court absent as the additional forum for the just conclusion of the matter.
Under the Amendment Act, three bodies, the Social Media Regulatory Authority, the Social Media Tribunal, and the Complaint Council, have been formulated. The Act fails to outline the relationship between the three and how they will be working to address the prevalent social media crisis in society. Precisely, which authority will be dealing with which issue, and in what circumstances, will be the prospects of a case falling in the ambit of two authorities.
While the Amendment Act is still to unfold completely. The future will uncover the credibility of major criticism of the amendment as a tool for the government to silence critics and opposition. Stakeholders should also not forget the famous words of the Bible:
“What you sow, so shall you reap.”
