Listen to the article
Pakistan’s High Court Debates Fake News Definition in Controversial Cybercrime Law Case
Pakistan’s judiciary is grappling with fundamental questions about freedom of expression as the Islamabad High Court (IHC) examines controversial amendments to the country’s cybercrime legislation. During Monday’s proceedings, Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas raised a critical question that cuts to the heart of the debate: “Who will decide which report falls under the category of fake news?”
The court is hearing multiple petitions challenging amendments to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), 2016, filed by media organizations including the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) and the Islamabad High Court Journalists Association.
During the hearing, Mian Samiuddin, representing the Islamabad High Court Journalists Association, argued that the amended law improperly transfers powers from the judiciary to the executive branch. He specifically highlighted Section 2(c) of the amended PECA, which deals with restrictions on “fake and false social media posts.”
Justice Minhas pressed for clarity on the mechanism for identifying false information and initiating proceedings, indicating concern about the subjective nature of labeling content as “fake news.”
Samiuddin explained that the amendments introduce a troubling new complaint system where not only aggrieved individuals but also third parties can file complaints. “This would allow proxies to lodge complaints, leading to misuse of the law,” he warned. The lawyer further argued that the amendments fail to distinguish between deliberate misinformation and genuine mistakes that cause no actual harm.
The court observed that since the matter involves legislation, it cannot be suspended through an interim order. Justice Minhas indicated the court would decide after hearing the case in full, adjourning proceedings until March 6.
The controversial amendments were pushed through parliament in January 2023 by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N)-led federal government, despite significant opposition from journalists and political opponents. The PECA (Amendment) Act, 2025 grants authorities expansive powers to remove and block content from social media platforms and establishes a Social Media Complaint Council.
Media organizations have raised serious constitutional concerns about the amended law. In their petitions, they argue that certain provisions of the act violate Articles 8, 9, 10-A, 18, 19, and 19-A of Pakistan’s Constitution, while also contradicting Islamic laws. One particularly contentious aspect is the requirement for journalists to disclose their sources, which petitioners argue fundamentally undermines press freedom.
The case highlights ongoing tensions in Pakistan between government control of information and press freedoms. Media watchdogs have expressed growing concern about the deteriorating environment for journalism in the country, with the amended cybercrime law representing what many see as part of a broader pattern of increasing restrictions on free expression.
Digital rights advocates have pointed out that vague definitions of “fake news” in legislation worldwide have frequently led to selective enforcement and harassment of legitimate journalists. Pakistan’s media industry, already facing economic challenges and safety concerns for reporters, views these amendments as potentially devastating to investigative journalism.
The court’s eventual ruling could have far-reaching implications for press freedom and digital rights in Pakistan, potentially setting precedents for how the country balances security concerns with fundamental rights to information and expression in the digital age.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
This is a complex free speech issue without easy answers. I’m curious to see how the Pakistan court balances concerns over misinformation with protecting legitimate journalism and public discourse.
Absolutely. Striking the right balance will be critical. Clear, consistent standards and processes are needed to avoid either censorship or the unchecked spread of falsehoods.
The debate over ‘fake news’ highlights the delicate line between combating misinformation and preserving free speech. I’ll be interested to see how the Pakistan court navigates this.
It’s a tricky balance for sure. Overly broad or vague definitions of ‘fake news’ could easily be abused. Rigorous, evidence-based processes will be crucial.
This is a complex issue with no easy answers. I’m curious to see the standards and mechanisms the Pakistan court decides on for identifying and addressing ‘fake news’.
Absolutely. Establishing clear, fair, and transparent criteria will be essential to avoid potential misuse or overreach. It’s a challenging but important issue to grapple with.
Determining what qualifies as ‘fake news’ is a thorny issue. I appreciate the Pakistan court taking this on and hope they can develop a thoughtful, nuanced approach.
Agreed, this is a challenging issue that requires careful consideration. Transparent criteria and impartial oversight will be key to any effective framework.
This debate over ‘fake news’ highlights the challenges of regulating online content. While misinformation is a real concern, I worry about government overreach. Curious to see how this plays out in Pakistan.
Agreed, it’s a difficult balance. Hopefully the court can establish clear, fair guidelines that protect free speech while addressing genuine misinformation issues.
The definition of ‘fake news’ is so murky and subjective. I’m not sure any institution should have the power to unilaterally decide what qualifies. Rigorous, transparent processes seem essential.
You make a good point. Giving too much power to any single entity, whether government or judiciary, could lead to abuse. An independent, multi-stakeholder approach may be prudent.
This is a complex issue without a simple answer. Who should have the power to determine what qualifies as ‘fake news’? The courts, the government, or the public? There are valid arguments on all sides.
I agree, it’s a delicate balance between free speech and preventing the spread of misinformation. Clear, transparent criteria would be important to avoid abuse of power.
The definition of ‘fake news’ can be quite subjective. I’m curious to see how the Pakistan court will rule on this – what standards and processes they decide are appropriate.
Absolutely, it’s a tricky line to walk. Empowering the executive branch alone could open the door to censorship, but the judiciary may not be best suited either. An independent oversight body could be one solution.