‘Guilty Until Proven Innocent’

In an era where digital communication underpins modern society, the regulation of online spaces remains a contentious issue. The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), originally enacted in 2016 in Pakistan, was intended to address cybercrime. However, recent amendments—first in 2022 and most recently in January 2025—have ignited widespread debate. Critics argue that rather than safeguarding citizens, PECA has evolved into a tool for suppressing dissent and curtailing press freedom. This article explores the origins of PECA, the controversial nature of its amendments, and the broader implications for freedom of expression in Pakistan.

PECA was introduced in 2016 to counter the growing threat of cybercrime, criminalizing activities such as cyberterrorism, online harassment, hacking, fraud, and unauthorized access to information systems. Initially, it was hailed as necessary to protect citizens in an increasingly digital world. However, from its inception, concerns were raised about its potential for misuse, particularly due to its vague language and the sweeping powers it granted to law enforcement.

The controversy surrounding PECA largely stems from its ambiguous wording and the unchecked authority it provides to government officials. One of the most contentious amendments was the criminalization of online defamation, making it a non-bailable offense punishable by imprisonment and heavy fines. This expansion effectively placed online criticism of public officials and institutions under the purview of criminal law, raising serious concerns about its implications for free speech.

The ambiguous language of the law further compounds the issue. For instance, Article 2R(g) of the PECA 2025 Amendment Act states: “…such online content… is known to be fake, or false, or there exist sufficient reasons to believe that the same may be fake or false beyond a reasonable doubt.” The phrase “sufficient reasons to believe” introduces significant legal uncertainty, allowing authorities broad discretion in determining what constitutes false information. This raises fears that the law could be weaponized to silence dissent and control narratives unfavourable to those in power.

Similarly, Clause (h) under the same article criminalizes any content that contains “aspersions” against individuals, including members of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or provincial assemblies. While it is reasonable to prohibit the spread of deliberate falsehoods that harm individuals, explicitly extending these protections to elected officials risks stifling public discourse. In a democratic society, parliamentarians are accountable to the people, and citizens must have the right to critique their representatives without fear of legal repercussions. The law’s vague wording could enable authorities to target journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens under the guise of preventing misinformation.

Beyond its problematic definitions, PECA grants law enforcement extensive powers, including the ability to arrest individuals without a warrant and compel service providers to share user data. The 2025 amendments further empower investigative authorities to take action against individuals accused of spreading “false information” without requiring a formal complaint from an affected party. This provision effectively allows the state to proactively monitor and prosecute online speech, raising significant concerns about abuse of power.

Supporters of the amendments argue that they are necessary for national security and the fight against cybercrime. However, critics warn that such provisions provide legal cover for suppressing opposition voices. The non-bailable nature of offenses means that accused individuals can be detained for extended periods without the possibility of release, undermining the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” This coercive legal framework increases the likelihood of self-censorship, as individuals may avoid discussing politically sensitive topics for fear of prosecution.

PECA’s expanded surveillance capabilities also pose serious threats to privacy and digital rights. The law’s broad mandate allows authorities to monitor online activities, raising fears that it could be used to track and target activists, journalists, and political dissidents. Given Pakistan’s history of press restrictions, these concerns are far from unfounded. The legal framework established by PECA risks transforming digital spaces into tools of control rather than platforms for open discourse.

Legal experts have criticized PECA’s harsh penalties, arguing that they are disproportionate to the alleged crimes. A social media post criticizing a public official, for example, could result in a five-year prison sentence, while other, more serious offenses often receive lighter punishments. The law effectively equates online criticism with serious crimes, creating a chilling effect that discourages citizens from engaging in political debate.

In a democratic society, parliamentarians are accountable to the people, and citizens must have the right to critique their representatives without fear of legal repercussions.

The impact of PECA extends beyond Pakistan’s legal system, affecting the country’s international reputation. Global human rights organizations and press freedom watchdogs, including Amnesty International and the International Federation of Journalists, have condemned the amendments, warning that they erode democratic principles and suppress fundamental freedoms. Pakistan, already facing scrutiny for its record on press freedom, risks further isolation on the global stage if it continues down this path.

While combating cybercrime is a legitimate concern, it should not come at the expense of fundamental rights. A more balanced approach would involve revisiting the defamation clauses and other controversial sections of PECA to minimize the potential for abuse. Judicial oversight mechanisms—such as requiring warrants and judicial reviews for arrests and surveillance—could help prevent misuse. Additionally, rather than relying on punitive legal measures, the government should invest in digital literacy programmes to promote responsible online behaviour and combat misinformation.

A more inclusive legislative process is also crucial. Engaging key stakeholders—including journalists’ associations, civil society organizations, and legal experts—could help ensure that future amendments strike a fair balance between cybersecurity and free expression. Laws governing digital spaces should be designed to protect citizens, not silence them.

The PECA amendments represent a troubling shift in Pakistan’s legal landscape. While the intent to curb cybercrime is commendable, the law’s implementation raises serious concerns about its impact on press freedom and democratic rights. As the debate over PECA continues, it is vital to recognize that a free press is the cornerstone of any democratic society. Without it, the chains on press freedom will only tighten, stifling voices that hold power to account and weakening the democratic fabric of the nation.