PECA 2025: A Step Towards Regulation or Suppression?

Garnering much debate, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act 2025 brought forth much controversy and debate regarding this new legislation and its implications on free speech, press freedom, and digital rights in Pakistan. Overstating the reason that this law was required for curbing disinformation, safeguarding national security, and regulating the digital space, the provisions are relatively too alarming for overreach and suppression of dissent. This article displays how the act is far from necessary, constituting a retrogressive departure from democratic principles, free expression, and fundamental human rights.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has promulgated the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Bill 2025, commonly referred to as PECA, purported to curtail digital crimes. The legislation prescribes stringent penalties including imprisonment for up to three years and pecuniary sanctions amounting Rs 2 million, for individuals disseminating false information. It establishes the Digital Rights Protection Authority, vested with authority to oversee social networks, take up complaints against them, expunge unlawful content, and ensure and enforce digital ethics. It can make registration in local territory with appointment of local representatives a pre-condition for the compliance of the law.

While the government claims that the measures are aimed at curbing fake news and hate speech, critics warn that the Act facilitates censorship and is susceptible to potential political exploitation due to such extensive regulatory powers. The bill has passed both the National Assembly and the Senate before receiving final approval. It has, however, been noted that journalists and media bodies have not been consulted. Prominent figures from PPP, like Sherry Rehman and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari have expressed concerns regarding the absence of stakeholder engagement, maintaining that media entities were not afforded an opportunity for deliberation before the enactment of the law.

One of the most problematic aspects of the Act is its vague and overly broad definitions of “false information” and “fake news.” The legislation vests the newly established Digital Rights Protection Authority (DRPA) with the discretionary power to determine what constitutes misinformation, without incorporating a well-defined legal framework or objective criteria to distinguish between deliberate falsehoods and legitimate expression. Such ambiguity allows for arbitrary interpretation and selective enforcement, thereby enabling the authorities to suppress political opposition, restrict journalists, and curtail activities of civil society under the pretext of regulating the digital content.

Journalistic organizations and human rights groups have expressed strong opposition to the Act, arguing that it will have a chilling effect on press freedom. The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) has condemned the law as a deliberate attempt to silence the media and prevent critical reporting on government actions. The provisions of the Act create a substantial risk that journalists exposing corruption, human rights violations, or policy failures may face legal repercussions if their reports are deemed “false” by the DRPA. Since Pakistan ranks at number 152 of 180 countries on the World Press Freedom Index, further curtailing media freedom would only aggravate the scenario.

Beyond its implications for press freedom, the Act also facilitates the persecution of political opponents and activists. Historically, governments have always availed obscure cybercrime legislations as an excuse to suppress dissenting voices and Pakistan is no exception in this regard. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) already condemned the ruling government for its use of digital regulations to stifle political criticism. The absence of safeguards against misuse renders this legislation susceptible to being wielded as a tool to undermine democratic checks and balances.

Another major concern that arises with the PECA (Amendment) Act 2025 is that it adds more pressure and burden on social media platforms and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as it mandates those entities to remove the content within the prescribed frames, failing to do so may incur liability to penalties or operational restrictions. This legal obligation effectively coerces technology companies into exercising excessive caution, leading to the removal of an inordinate amount of material, even when the legitimacy of the reported content remains debatable. Such pre-emptive censorship might squelch not only politically sensitive discussions but also actual journalistic investigations, social activism, and even satire. In addition, the compulsion to obey the orders of the government might also discourage international digital networks to invest in Pakistan’s market, further limiting users’ access to diverse sources of information and reducing the connectivity of the country with international digital discourse even more.

The Act further fosters an environment of self-censorship. When individuals live under the constant threat of severe legal sanctions for their online expression, they are effectively deterred from questioning governmental policies, presenting dissenting viewpoints, or criticizing the administration. This shrinks the democratic space of expression on the digital platform, thereby impeding individual liberty and undermining foundational principles of democracy. A democratic society prospers when citizens may question the government, challenge a policy, or express an opinion without fear of persecution. Undermining all these core values, PECA risks steering Pakistan towards an era of controlled information and restricted civic engagement, where holding those in power accountable becomes increasingly difficult.

The legitimacy of the legislation is further compromised by the lack of inclusive consultation in its formulation. Civil society groups, journalists, digital rights activists, and opposition leaders were not consulted enough in the drafting process. The lack of transparency in the legislative decision-making process is of concern about the motivation for the law as well as how much it serves public interest. In contrast, democratic countries with ordinances on digital spaces discuss their issues openly with all stakeholders to balance the fight against disinformation and uphold free speech. Pakistan’s unilateral approach has overlooked consensus building during legislation, giving the Act a look more like an instrument of coercion rather than a proper regulation.

When compared with international frameworks concerning digital rights, PECA does not meet the global standards of human rights. Organizations like Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders have argued that Pakistan’s approach is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), for which Pakistan is a signatory. Article 19 guarantees the right to freedom of expression, subject only to reasonable restrictions that are necessary and proportionate. The Act’s sweeping provisions fail to meet this threshold and thus risk isolating Pakistan from the international community.

For those countries that have been successful in countering false information without violating free speech rights, it is seemingly balanced. For instance, the European Union’s Digital Services Act adopts a principle of transparency, accountability, and due process on issues involving content moderation and the decision of the moderators becomes independent oversight. It is quite different from Pakistan’s approach since this body has central power but is prone to political influence in its functioning.

This, in turn, can negatively impact Pakistan’s digital economy. The country has already seen a lot of growth in its technology sector, with many startups, freelancers, and digital entrepreneurs playing their part in economic progress. However, more severe censorship and litigious risks may attract fewer investors, stifle innovation, and force businesses to shift to places offering more favourable digital policies. The worrying aspect of the Act is that it may be misused by law enforcement agencies. Pakistan’s previous cybercrime laws, including the original PECA 2016, were criticized for using them to harass activists, bloggers, and ordinary citizens. The more the scope for digital surveillance was expanded under the 2025 amendment, the greater the chances of the same kind of misuse.

The Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act 2025 is a treacherous move toward digital authoritarianism. Because it gives such sweeping powers to a regulatory authority without adequate checks and balances, the law does damage to free expression, squashes journalistic freedom, and injects fear in the digital domain. Its amorphous, broad language provides ample scope for misuse, empowering authorities to strike at critics and dissenters on the pretext of fighting disinformation.

Pakistan’s democratic institutions and civil society must resist this law and fight for reforms that balance security concerns with fundamental rights. A truly progressive approach to regulating the digital landscape should focus on transparency, judicial oversight, and public participation.