Spreading Fake News is Now a Non-Bailable Offense in Pakistan

The President of Pakistan, Dr. Arif Alvi, promulgated an ordinance on Sunday to amend the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), 2016 to penalize ‘fake news’ as cognizable and non-bailable offense.

Drafted by the Prime Minister’s aide on Parliamentarian Affairs, Babar Awan, the bill was sent to the federal Cabinet for approval on Saturday. It was promulgated by President Alvi after formal approval from the Cabinet on Sunday.

Addressing a press conference after a session of the Cabinet in Islamabad, the Minister for Law and Justice, Barrister Dr. Farogh Naseem, said that through an amendment to Section 20 of PECA, 2016, the imprisonment for spreading ‘fake news’ has been increased from three to five years.

The new ordinance called the ‘Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022’ also criminalizes defamation against civil and military institutions, as well as public office-holders, and allows complainants to seek defamation and criminal proceedings against the accused.

According to the ordinance, the definition of a “person” now includes any “company, association or body of people whether incorporated or not, institution, organization, authority or any other body set up by the government under any law or otherwise.”

Under the ordinance, judges will be bound to decide on fake news and online defamation cases within six months.

“The trial shall be concluded expeditiously, but preferably not later than six months of taking cognizance of the case,” it read.

The ordinance also stated that the court has to submit a monthly progress report of any pending trial to the high court concerned and give reasons for the inability of the court to expeditiously conclude the trial.

It read: “In case the high court finds the reasons given by the court under sub-section (2) to be plausible … it may accept the explanation of the court, and prescribe fresh timelines for the conclusion of a trial”.

Also, the high court could order disciplinary action against the judge or any of the court’s functionaries if they were found to be responsible for the delay in the disposal of the trial.