Pakistan’s telecom sector urgently needs reform. Expanding fibre-optic networks, improving connectivity and streamlining right-of-way procedures are essential if the country is to meet the demands of a digital economy. The Telecommunication Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2026, was ostensibly designed to achieve these objectives. Instead, it has become embroiled in controversy because of provisions that many believe infringe upon private property and individual rights. The controversy surfaced when the bill, after being approved by the National Assembly earlier this month, reached the Senate where objections were raised regarding several clauses deemed unconstitutional and potentially harmful to citizens. Among the provisions drawing criticism is a clause that would permit the free installation of telecom towers in public spaces, including parks, green belts and government buildings. The Senate Standing Committee on IT and Telecom objected to this provision, while other clauses relating to telecom towers, equipment and penalties for obstructing infrastructure deployment have been widely described as exploitative. Particular concern has centred on Section 27B, which proposes fines of up to Rs50 million against property owners, tenants, landlords or institutions that refuse or obstruct right-of-way access for telecom infrastructure. The provision generated such alarm that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Sunday ordered the formation of a high-level committee to urgently review the bill’s controversial sections.
Meanwhile, IT Minister Shaza Fatima Khawaja and Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar have clarified that there was never any intention to allow telecom companies to occupy private property or install towers without the consent of owners. Indeed, the government itself now concedes that the language used in Section 27B does not accurately reflect its intended purpose. According to officials, the clause was meant to address situations in which agreements between telecom operators and private individuals had been signed but subsequently not honoured, thereby providing a mechanism to settle disputes. Critics have rightly pointed out that this supposed intent is nowhere evident in the bill itself. What is clearly visible, however, is an arbitrary and draconian penalty imposed on private individuals. Significantly, even telecom lawyers have argued that the provision concerning private homes and properties is both unnecessary and excessive. They note that disputes over telecom infrastructure generally arise between telecom companies and public authorities or private housing societies. Representatives of the telecom sector have also stated that there has been no reported dispute between telecom operators and private individuals that would justify such sweeping powers and penalties.
None of this diminishes the importance of telecommunications infrastructure. Reliable connectivity has become a critical infrastructure in the 21st century, and there is little dispute that Pakistan’s existing right-of-way regime requires improvement. Modern economies depend on robust fibre networks, mobile coverage and digital access. Reforming outdated procedures is therefore a legitimate and necessary policy objective. What the controversy really highlights is a deeper problem: inadequate scrutiny before legislation is tabled. The fact that a bill intended to modernise telecom infrastructure contained language that could be interpreted as infringing upon fundamental rights suggests a troubling lack of vetting. Of course, Pakistan needs more fibreisation, better Wi-Fi and stronger mobile connectivity. But the pursuit of these goals cannot come at the expense of citizens’ rights. The government must ensure that efforts to modernise telecommunications are accompanied by legislation that is carefully drafted, narrowly tailored and fully respectful of individual freedoms.
