Introduction
Before the PECA 2025 amendments, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 was the primary legislation guiding Pakistan's cyber-crime laws, online content regulation, and other related areas. With the PECA 2025 amendments, more powers and offences of greater magnitude have been introduced.
Among the amendments, the first draft of Section 26(A) will penalise the "spreading and distribution of false and fake information" online and causing "fear, panic or unrest" in the general public. The draft proposes a penalty of three years imprisonment or a fine of 2 million PKR.
The amendments also increase the regulatory and surveillance powers of government, telecom, and media authorities. For instance, a new "authority" will have the power to block or remove content in 24 hours, mandate platform registration, and impose supervision on social media.
The act breached norm after norm of public debate and input, and was instead passed in record time. For instance, one of the National Assembly debates on the act lasted about 15 minutes.
2. Lawyers' & bar associations' objections.
The legal community, specifically the KBA and other bar associations, presented each of the objections, and I will summarise these with the evidence.
2.1 Freedom of expression & media independence
The amendments are viewed by lawyers as an attempt to curb free speech, restrict media, and silence dissent by lawyers, journalists, and citizens. For instance, KBA’s resolution claims the amendments ‘pose a grave threat to the democratic framework of the state’ and insists ‘freedom of speech and access to information are … inalienable rights’.
Concerns have been raised about the ambiguity of the provisions, for instance, ‘What is ‘false’ or ‘fake’ information? What constitutes ‘fear, panic or unrest?”’ which renders the provisions open to arbitrary enforcement and the silencing of dissent.
The absence of meaningful consultations with the relevant stakeholders (lawyers, media, civil society) prior to the law’s enactment is lamentable. For instance, KBA criticizes the government for ‘not engaging relevant stakeholders, including the judiciary, the legal fraternity, and civil society’.
For instance, advocates point out to Article 19 of the Constitution which provides for ‘freedom of speech’. Also, advocates emphasize the legal restrictions, which apply to all rights including free speech, must be clear, remain balanced, and be for acceptable objectives. The amendments, in the advocates’ views, fall far below such standards.
2.2 Judicial independence, rule of law & institutional checks
The legal community perceives the amendments to the PECA as part of a larger narrative where the executive/government is centralizing power, undermining the independence of the judiciary, and control the bar associations and the media.
For instance, at the KBA convention, the PECA amendments were associated with the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2024 (“26th amendment”) which they claim promotes the erosion of the independence of the judiciary.
To put it differently, the lawyers combined on all fronts - the legal profession’s autonomy, the judiciary’s independence, the oversight of the media, and the PECA amendments.
2.3. Federalism, provincial rights & PECA related procedural justice
Though more indirectly connected to the PECA issue, in the KBA resolution, the lawyers also included components of federalism (Sindh’s rights) and the federal government’s discretionary control of resources (water/canal projects), corporate agriculture, and especially the Food Security Act. They consider these to all fall under the overarching theme of excessive centralization and control, poor stakeholder engagement, and rights erosion.
To illustrate, they highlight these reforms were adopted without the consent of the directly impacted provinces (specifically Sindh) or the legal profession, which they consider to be unconstitutional, particularly citing the violations of Articles 153, 154 and others.
2.4 Mobilising lawyer community & proposed action
There have been calls claiming action at the level of the country, now as a legal community, which was expressed through KBA, with the claim that if these demands are not satisfied, it would subsequently lead to a constitutional & public movement being launched. They assert the need of repealing the PECA amendments, or at a minimum, significant revisions and stakeholder engagement.
3. Linked reforms/issues: water‑canals, corporate farming, federalism
While the primary trigger is the PECA amendments, the resolution by the lawyers bundles other reforms as part of a pattern. The key ones are:
3.1 Canal / Water-resource projects
During the convention (held by KBA 12 April 2025), the lawyers rejected the Cholistan Canal and Great Thal Canal Phase II among six other canal projects, claiming “a clear violation of the constitution” (specifically Articles 153 & 154) for bypassing Sindh’s consent.
Describing the projects as “colonial-style plundering of Sindh’s water resources” and “Modern Day Thugs”, they demanded a new 1945 water treaty based water sharing agreement, and guaranteed minimum 10 MAF of water downstream flow at Kotri.
3.2 Corporate farming and land=leases (“Green Pakistan initiative”)
The resolution also opposed “Green Pakistan” or “corporate farming” initiatives which they argued leases thousands of acres of state land to corporate/pivate entites to cabin.
Lawyers demanded land leases to be cancelled, and state land to be redistributed as meaningful agrarian reform to the landless.
3.3 Federalism, constitutional structure & legal process
The legal community ties all of these to a central issue: a lack of meaningful consultation (with provinces, bar associations, judiciary) and the centralization of decision-making, which results in the loss of institutional checks & balances.According to them, the 26th Amendment, PECA amendments, and the developmental reforms constitute an ‘anti-constitutional package’ that encroached democratic principles, rights to resources and autonomy of the profession.
4. Why this matters for the legal profession & the public
For lawyers, the amendments to PECA and the wider reforms concern the profession’s rights of free expression, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law within which they operate. The lawyers’ ability to advise, critique, or litigate undergoes significant changes when the state has broad powers to silence expression, target opponents, and impose ‘punishments’ because of the state’s expansive powers to control dissent.
For citizens, the state’s control over critical resources (water and land), dissent, and the rights of speech, encircled within the rights of self-governance, make their activism a fight for personal and democratic rights.
For the constitutional order, the package of reforms signals to lawyers a significant move toward centralised control, diminished provincial autonomy, and muted voices which can alter the balance of federal power, institutional independence, and accountability.
