The recent amendment to Pakistan’s cybercrimes act, officially known as the Pakistan Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, has sparked significant controversy and concern among various sectors, both domestically and internationally. Passed on January 29, 2025, the law introduces strict provisions that could have severe implications for freedom of expression and internet freedom in the country. The amendments criminalize the dissemination of “fake or false” information with harsh penalties, yet the language used in the law is vague and overbroad, triggering fears of potential misuse.
The Impact on Freedom of Expression
Criminalization of “Fake or False” Information
One of the alarming aspects of the new amendment is the criminalization of what it terms “fake or false” information. According to the law, any information that could cause “fear, panic, disorder or unrest” is punishable by up to three years in prison. Critics argue that this broad language leaves significant room for interpretation, making it possible for authorities to target a wide range of expressions, including those that are critical of the government. This jeopardizes one of the fundamental principles of democracy—freedom of speech—and could deter individuals from expressing dissenting opinions.
Furthermore, the definitions within the amendment are not clearly outlined, which raises the question of who decides what qualifies as “fake or false” information. Without a clear and transparent framework, the law can be easily exploited to silence opposition and suppress free speech. In a country where freedom of the press is already under severe pressure, this additional layer of censorship is particularly troubling. Several human rights organizations have voiced their concerns, emphasizing that the amendment undermines the very essence of democratic values and civil liberties.
Lack of Inclusive Consultation
Another critical issue with the passage of this law is the exclusion of civil society groups and the private sector from the consultation process. This lack of inclusive dialogue prevented substantive public scrutiny and deprived stakeholders of the opportunity to voice their concerns or suggest improvements. By bypassing such crucial input, the government has faced allegations of undermining democratic processes and pushing through legislation that predominantly serves its interests rather than those of the public.
The exclusionary approach used in the enactment of the new law also highlights a broader pattern of governance that neglects transparency and community engagement. With a more inclusive consultation process, the government could have addressed legitimate concerns about online security while still respecting fundamental freedoms. The lack of input from relevant stakeholders has resulted in a law that mainly serves to fortify executive power instead of protecting citizens’ rights, thereby eroding public trust in governmental institutions.
Creation of New Regulatory Bodies
Introduction of Government-Controlled Entities
The amendment introduces the creation of four new government bodies tasked with regulating online content. One such entity, the Social Media Protection Tribunal, is composed of government-appointed members, raising significant concerns about its independence and impartiality. Critics argue that its close association with the government undermines its credibility, as it is unlikely to act against the interests of those who appointed its members. This raises fears that the tribunal could become a tool for political directives rather than an unbiased adjudicator of online content disputes.
Additionally, another body, the Social Media Protection and Regulation Authority, has been given extensive powers to compel social media companies to remove or block content deemed “against the ideology of Pakistan” or known to be “fake or false.” Such sweeping authority could force social media platforms to engage in self-censorship to comply with government demands, thus stifling open dialogue and exchange of ideas. The criteria for what constitutes harmful content are ambiguous, enabling the government to use these provisions to suppress any content it deems unfavorable, further entrenching state control over digital spaces.
Implications for International Human Rights Standards
Internationally, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) stipulates that any restrictions on freedom of expression must be narrowly defined, necessary, and proportionate. As a signatory to the ICCPR, Pakistan is obligated to adhere to these standards. However, the provisions introduced by the Pakistan Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, appear to deviate significantly from these principles. The vague and overbroad language of the law does not align with the necessity and proportionality standards required under international human rights law.
Several international human rights organizations, including the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists, have criticized the new law for its potential to curtail freedoms and penalize dissent. These organizations argue that the law is likely to be used to target political workers, human rights defenders, journalists, and other dissenting voices. They call for immediate repeal or substantial reform of the amendment to ensure it aligns with international human rights standards.
Conclusion
The recent amendment to Pakistan’s cybercrimes law, formally named the Pakistan Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, has ignited considerable controversy and concern both within the country and on the global stage. Enacted on January 29, 2025, the legislation introduces stringent provisions that could seriously impact freedom of expression and online liberty in Pakistan. The amendments criminalize the spread of “fake or false” information, enforcing severe penalties for violations. However, the vague and overly broad language used in the law has led to fears of potential misuse and abuse by authorities. Critics argue that the law’s ambiguity allows it to be wielded against political dissenters, journalists, and activists, stifling legitimate discourse and media freedom. As such, many worry the new amendment could be employed to quash dissenting voices and limit the public’s access to unbiased information, posing a significant threat to democratic principles and human rights within Pakistan.