Journalist Benazir Shah has filed a petition before the Lahore High Court (LHC) challenging amendments to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA), arguing they violate Articles 19 and 19A of the Constitution and should be suspended outright until the final decision of the court.
The writ petition, submitted under Article 199 through lawyer Hassan Niazi, argues that free speech is the foundation of a democratic system. It emphasizes that if citizens live in fear of their “speech being judged upon shifting, arbitrary, lines drawn by the state,” they cannot effectively participate in government decision-making and voice their opposition to undemocratic initiatives.
According to the petition, PECA (Amendment), 2025 violates both Articles 19, 19A of the Constitution, pertaining to freedom of speech and the right to information, respectively. It stresses that under the Constitution, restrictions on speech must be explicit and reasonable, adding ambiguity within the legislation’s text regarding “fake news” discourages investigative journalism and fosters fear of criminal prosecution for the act of reporting.
It notes that Shah has filed the petition in the public interest as a concerned citizen whose livelihood depends on the free exercise of speech as guaranteed under the Constitution. “The petitioner is therefore directly aggrieved by the ‘chilling effect’ on speech created by the Amendment Act,” it says.
Speaking with The Standard, Shah—editor of the Fact-Checking Department at Geo News—recalled that the government had inserted Section 26A into PECA through an amendment in January 2025. “The provision criminalizes the spread of ‘fake and false’ information, but it does not provide a clear definition of what constitutes fake or false information. This overly broad provision allows the state to misuse the law,” she said, noting human rights lawyers Imaan Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chatta were convicted under the same provision in the “fake tweets” case.
“In many instances, these cases follow a predictable pattern,” she explained. “They are initiated by the state itself through its officers rather than through private complaints and the content in question is frequently labeled ‘anti-state,’ a vague and expansive term that lacks clear legal boundaries,” she added.
According to the petition, the lack of a clear definition for “anti-state” content seeks to deter criticism of government officials and suppresses written expression. It also cites declarations from several global rights organizations, including Reporters without Borders (RSF), which ranks Pakistan 158 out of 180 countries in its World Press Freedom Index due to PECA’s role in restricting freedom of expression.
In a November 2025 report, the Pakistan Press Foundation noted the registration of at least 22 cases against journalists under PECA, stressing the amendment had “further empowered a clampdown on journalists and media professionals, among other citizens, in their expression online.” Human Rights Watch has similarly criticized the amendment as giving “authorities a weapon to punish people whose speech they don’t like.”
Shah notes that a “growing body of evidence” shows that initially the Federal Investigation Agency and now the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency have repeatedly used PECA to suppress dissent since it became law in 2016. “The legislation has been invoked against ordinary citizens, civil society activists, journalists, and political figures; individuals who are clearly not cybercriminals,” she told The Standard.
The writ petition submitted to the LHC argues that the PECA amendment fails to make any distinction between speech against private and public individuals, noting the latter must abide by international standards that require a higher threshold to be deemed unlawful.
Further, the petition argues that the amendment’s reliance on the term “aspersion” allows an understaffed Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority the right to determine the validity of proliferated information. It alleges that the Authority lacks independence and is therefore unfit to deem speech permissible, effectively acting as an extension of the federal government itself. It further notes the lack of procedural safeguards to prevent abuse of discretion by the Authority in exercising its power to block speech under Section 2R of the amended act.
The use of “tribunals” to hear cases registered under PECA is also questioned, with the petition noting they create a “parallel justice system” with members appointed by the federal government rather than the High Courts in violation of Articles 175, 202 and 203 of the Constitution.
‘Black law’
Journalist and Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) Co-Chair Munizae Jahangir described PECA as “draconic,” stressing the “black law” must be abolished rather than amended once again.
Speaking with The Standard, she raised concerns about how “PECA’s convoluted application process makes it exceedingly difficult for real victims, such as women who have experienced sexual harassment or assault” to get justice. Such issues, she emphasized, should be a matter of civil law, as practiced in a majority of countries globally.
“Such repressive policing of speech will make both current and aspiring journalists increasingly hesitant to make complaints or critiques of government processes,” she warned. “PECA’s overreach of power is a direct attack on Pakistan’s inherently democratic culture,” she added.
In the first hearing, held on March 2, LHC Judge Anwaar Hussain issued notices to the federation of Pakistan through the secretary interior as well as the attorney general for Pakistan. Proceedings will resume on April 8, when the ultimate question before the LHC will be whether the state’s expanding digital oversight can be reconciled with constitutional guarantees of free expression.