PECA 2016 and PECA (Amendment) Act 2025

Introduction

The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act was enacted in 2016 to address the rapidly growing misuse of digital technology in Pakistan when various crimes emerged due to the abuse of social media by many individuals. With time, the use of social media has drastically increased which has also made way for many crimes which traditional laws did not cover before this Act. Issues like cyber stalking, harassment, fraud, and spreading false information became the norm due to which this Act had to be introduced to make actions like this be known as criminalized, amounting to criminal liability as to hinder people from the misuse of social media.

Initially this Act provided the legal framework through which all online abuse would be deterred and all the individuals using social media would be protected by predators and harmful information. However, as time went on, this Act proved to be insufficient without a regulating body to control and tame the misuse of social media, subsequently, the Amendment Act of 2025 was enacted to strengthen the existing law while introducing new definitions enhancing the enforcement mechanisms through which the evolving digital threats would be dealt with amicably.

Central clauses and provisions

Section 20 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 is a major provision which deals with the offences against the dignity of a natural person, this section addresses the defamation of an individual, it addresses the criminality of damaging an individual’s reputation and dignity. Under this section, it is recognized as a crime to intentionally defame or assassinate a person’s character through the spread of false or private information. This is pivotal as it aims to protect people from being defamed and ridiculed online. For example, if a person is spreading rumours and false allegations about a person to harm their reputation, this section may be applied to hold them accountable.

Similarly, Section 24 is another major provision which addresses the issue of cyber stalking. This section covers the intimidation, threats, harassment, or any unwanted communication online. This is applicable in situations where a person persistently threatens someone online or pretends to be someone else in order to cause fear or distress. The inclusion of this provision is crucial as it goes to show that the law recognizes that serious cases of harassment can take place online just like they do in real life.

Section 37 of the 2016 Act is pivotal as it gives authorities the right to remove or block access to unlawful content online. The unlawful content may include material that promotes immoral or illegal activities that prove to be harmful for the public, any content which contains illegal material shall be dealt with under this provision. This proves to be a vital provision as it aims to protect public order and safety, ultimately regulating the content people see on social media.

The Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act of 2025 introduced major changes into the original Act of 2016, this was done through the establishment of Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority under newly added sections. This authority would be responsible for regulating social media platforms, ensuring compliance with the law. The 2016 Act merely stated what was illegal through the definition of cybercrimes and their punishments while the Amendment Act dedicated an authoritative figure to handle online content and complaints. For instance, if a social media platform fails to remove unlawful content specified under the Act, the Authority may partially or fully block the media or its platform until compliance is achieved. This provision makes major improvements, as it centralizes regulatory power within a federal body.

Section 2R improves the initial Act of 2016 by defining categories of online content that may be considered unlawful or offensive, amounting to criminal liability, including the spread of fake or false information, content that harms the reputation of individuals through false allegations, material that threatens public order. By explicitly identifying these categories, the amendment reduces ambiguity and brings in clarity.

Amendments

Insertion of New Section 26‑A: Section 26‑A criminalises the intentional dissemination of false, fake or misleading information through an information system that likely causes fear, panic, disorder or unrest. Offences under Section 26‑A attract imprisonment up to three years, or a fine up to two million rupees, or both.

Section 30 of the PECA that had earlier authorized police and FIA to investigate cybercrimes has been amended providing exclusive powers to the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency to investigate cybercrime related cases. For adjudication, the new amendments add new Chapter 1-C to the PECA. Section 2-V provides for Social Media Protection Tribunals (SMPTs) comprising three members: one with law background; one with journalistic credentials and one with information technology background. Persons aggrieved of the decisions of the SMPRA may prefer an appeal to the SMPTs. The SMPRA may also reach out against persons for not implementing its directions.

Key Cases

Abdul Rehman v. The State (2022 SCMR 526)

In this case, the petitioner was accused of cyber stalking and transmitting objectionable images of a woman, attracting the application of sections 3, 4 and 21 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. The petitioner sought bail under section 497, Cr.P.C., contending that the offences alleged did not fall within the prohibitory clause. The Supreme Court held that although ordinarily, upon conclusion of investigation in criminal cases falling outside the prohibition, bail is favourably considered, such practice is not without limitations. In the present case, the privacy of a young lady had been grievously intruded, causing utter embarrassment to her family and placing her marriage in peril. The incident was reported by her father-in-law. In view of these facts, the concurrent findings of the courts below in denying bail were found to be correct. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and bail was refused.

Maqbool Ahmed Mahessar v. NAB (2021 SCMR 1166)

In this case, the accused was charged with electronic forgery and fraud under sections 13 and 14 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, read with sections 420, 468, 471 and 109, PPC. The High Court granted post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500,000 and additionally directed the accused to deposit Rs. 3.5 million in the Trial Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court lacked legal backing to impose such a monetary condition. The condition amounted to pre-trial recovery, which is impermissible. The condition of deposit was set aside, while the grant of bail on surety bonds was maintained.

Mian Haseeb Madni v. The State (2025 YLR 1951)

In this case, the petitioner was accused of harassing, threatening and blackmailing the complainant by circulating video and audio through social media, along with allegations of rape, abetment and provocation, attracting sections 20, 21, 24 and 54 of PECA 2016. The record showed that the petitioner had a specific and vital role in sharing and making viral false content alleging zina. An inquiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police found the allegations false and baseless, and the recovered cell phone contained the incriminating V-log video. The Court observed that the petitioner had gone to grotesque lengths to humiliate the complainant online, potentially causing severe psychological harm. The mere fact that offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause did not make them bailable as of right. The bail petition was dismissed.

Implementation and practical effect

The implementation of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 initially faced some challenges due to its weak enforcement mechanisms, lack of a specialized regulatory body, and the unclear content regulation, for instance Section 37 of the 2016 Act gave authorities the power to block or remove unlawful content online but did not specify what fell under this category, it did not provide a clear criterion for the content to be removed. The 2025 Amendment attempts to overcome these shortcomings by introducing clearer mechanisms for handling complaints online. The Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority is intended to improve efficiency and ensure faster responses for complaints.