The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Tuesday granted more time to the federal law officer to file comments on the petitions challenging the amendment to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca).
The Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors, the Pakistan Broadcasters Association and media outlets said in their petition that they are aggrieved by the restrictions on the fundamental freedom of speech that has been imposed through Peca’s sections 26A, 2B(1), 2C, 2G(2), 2R, 2W(2) and 2X.
They said that the impugned provisions of the Peca amendment prohibit free speech even if one were to speak about subject matters that are not mentioned in Article 19 of the Constitution.
They said that the impugned provisions impose restrictions on subjects like critical comments on the actions of public officials, adding that this is an unreasonable restriction by labelling it as “fake news” in advance.
The outrageous aspect of the impugned provisions is that the Social Media Protection & Regulatory Authority (SMPRA) would first prohibit online speech in 24 hours, then take 30 to 60 days to decide if the online speech was fake, they added.
They also said that the impugned provisions are not in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution because they aim to restrict an individual’s freedom to express their views, dissent or disapprove publicly.
The amendment was promulgated to control dissent, which is the antithesis to democracy, which is an essential feature of the Constitution, the petitioners pointed out.
They said that Peca’s Section 26A suppresses free speech because it clearly contains a threat that if a person exercises their right of free speech, the government would punish them, and whatever is said by a person will be viewed as false in the eyes of the government.
They requested the court to declare that the new offence created under Peca’s Section 26A causes a constitutionally impermissible chilling effect against free speech and is ultra vires the Constitution.
They also sought the declaration that the new offence created under Peca’s 26A that criminalises anticipated fake news is a prior restraint/censorship, and it violates the fundamental right of free speech.
They also sought the declaration that sections 2B(1), 2C, 2G(2) and 2R that empower the SMPRA to arbitrarily block excess to social media on the pretext of demand to remove online content posted on an information system as ultra vires the Constitution.
They also sought the declaration that Section 2W(2) that contains an illusionary appeal is ultra vires the Constitution, and that the wording of the new offence created under 26A that criminalises the anticipated fake news is hit by the vagueness doctrine and violates the fundamental right of life as protected under Article 4 of the Constitution.
The federal law officer sought more time to file comments on the petition. An SHC division bench headed by Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed directed the law officer to file the comments before the next date of hearing.
