Over 350 Pakistanis booked under illegal cases under PECA Act Azad News HD
The Evolving Dynamics of PECA in Pakistan
Since its inception in 2016, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) was envisioned as a legal framework to address cybercrimes—ranging from defamation and online hate speech to data breaches. But recent developments, especially revelations during meetings of the Senate Standing Committee on Information and Broadcasting, suggest a disturbing shift: PECA is increasingly being wielded as a tool to suppress dissent, with more than 350 cases registered across Pakistan—and many appearing questionable in their legitimacy.
1. Unpacking the Numbers: The Surge in PECA FIRs
Official Figures and Senate Oversight
The Senate Standing Committee, chaired by Senator Ali Zafar, received briefings from the Ministries of Interior and Information revealing that a staggering 689 cases had been registered under PECA nationwide since the law's parliamentary passage over ten months ago—including nine FIRs against journalists . Of those, only one journalist had been arrested, while seven others were said to be outside the country .
Earlier, the committee had voiced its “annoyance” over cases being filed against media professionals and social media activists, noting the Ministry of Information failed to supply necessary reports, and that the Ministry of Interior had not responded to requests for detail . This disregard prompted the committee to demand the interior secretary’s appearance in a subsequent meeting for clarification .
Contextualizing the Volume
While the “more than 350” cases reported in media alerts seem lower, they likely refer to specific time frames or regions. In Punjab alone, for instance, three additional FIRs were filed in February 2025 against alleged AI-generated deepfake content targeting Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz in Lahore — lodged at Shahdara, Shahdara Town, and Kot Lakhpat stations .
Similarly, a coordinated crackdown in Lahore led to 23 cases lodged within just 24 hours, targeting individuals accused of spreading “hate and misinformation” against state institutions .
The scale of enforcement is further highlighted by national statistics: in 2024 alone, over 160,000 cybercrime complaints were filed. Yet, with only about 350 investigators available, millions languished in an overwhelmed system .
2. From Cybercrime to Political Shorthand: The Misuse of PECA
Targeting Political Dissent and Journalists
The law's evolution—from tackling cybercrime to politically charged allegations—is evident. Several FIRs now cite general “anti-state” content or “defaming” videos as grounds for action. In one case, over 99 cases were filed between January and mid-July 2025, mostly targeting critics of Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz. Of these, 63 were registered in Punjab alone, often flagged under vague “anti-state” categories .
Religious or extremist content aside, the law now proves its gravity by ensnaring journalists, digital content creators, and even local social media users under accusations of fabricated narratives or deepfakes—cases that might not have clear public-interest or criminal intent.
Deepfakes and AI: Weapons or Pretexts?
In one illustrative instance, individuals were accused of using AI to create deepfake videos of CM Maryam Nawaz, allegedly to foment unrest. However, no arrests were made, raising questions about evidentiary support and selective enforcement .
Voices of Concern: Civil Society and Rights Advocates
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) condemned the 2025 amendments, warning that the law’s expansive focus on “fake or false news” could suppress fundamental rights and media freedom .
Meanwhile, journalists and advocacy groups have branded PECA as a major threat, calling it a “free hand” for the government to stifle dissent, particularly in the digital space .
3. Official Response: Framing or Defusing the Crisis?
Government Rhetoric on PECA’s Intent
Information Minister Attaullah Tarar has defended PECA as a necessary measure to combat rampant misuse of social media—citing concerns like fake news, harassment, pornography, and threats to national security. He emphasized that media must support the legislation, and articulated plans for a Social Media Authority, tribunals, and judicial oversight up to the Supreme Court .
At a public event, Tarar extended an olive branch—encouraging dialogue with critics through the Joint Action Committee on PECA .
Legislative and Institutional Gaps
Despite these assurances, the Senate panel's experience suggests reluctance or inability by bureaucratic bodies to share required data. The lack of transparency and unanswered documentation requests illustrate a disconnect between policy intent and implementation.
Meanwhile, the FIA Cybercrime Wing and National Cybercrime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) have ramped up enforcement capacity. Yet with only a few hundred cyber investigators, they’re poorly positioned to handle the volume or complexity of cases both trivial and high-stakes .
4. Human Cost and Broader Implications
Chilling Effect on Free Expression
The ambiguity in key PECA clauses—such as “anti-state” content, defamation, or deepfake usage—creates an environment ripe for censorship. Journalists, creators, and activists may self-censor to avoid legal action.
As one Pakistani X user lamented: “63 PECA cases for criticizing CM—shows how childish she is, can’t tolerate any criticism” .
Legal Backlog and Institutional Fatigue
With a deluge of cases and insufficient investigators, the FIA is drowning. Arab News reports that 60% of cases remain unresolved beyond statutory timeframes, raising concerns about due process and justice delayed being justice denied .
Erosion of Trust in Institutions
The disparity in how PECA is applied—prompt against perceived critics, sluggish for large-scale embezzlement scandals—diminishes public faith. For instance, a Rs 1.24 billion embezzlement case in APP (Associated Press of Pakistan) remains FIR-less despite being uncovered months earlier, raising pointed scrutiny from the Senate panel .
Technological Overreach and Surveillance Concerns
PECA's enforcement works in tandem with expanding digital surveillance—such as firewall systems and mass phone monitoring—raising alarms among privacy advocates .
5. Conclusion: PECA at a Crossroads
The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act began in 2016 with a mandate to address cyber threats. But by 2025, parliamentary amendments, mass FIRs (hundreds within a year), and rising enforcement targeting dissent suggest the law is increasingly being misused.
While the government frames PECA as a bulwark against fake news and digital harm, the lack of proper safeguards, weak institutional capacity, and evidence of selective application have undermined that claim.
