Digital Rights Foundation. “Digital Rights Report Exposes Peca Threats to Press Freedom.
” Dawn, 26
Feb. 2025, https://www.dawn.com/news/1894303.
This article discusses the findings of the 2025 Digital Rights Foundation (DRF) report, which critiques the
evolving legal and political uses of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) in Pakistan. It is
particularly significant to our paper’s fifth analytical stage which is examining the 2025 PECA
amendment because it presents civil society’s backlash against newly introduced legal provisions. The
article outlines how journalists are facing an increasingly repressive media landscape, amplified by vague
and broad applications of digital legislation. It identifies a growing ‘chilling effect’ among the press due
to expanded state surveillance and content regulation. This aligns with our thesis that PECA, particularly
after the amendment, is tilting the balance in favour of national security and public order at the cost of
constitutional digital rights, especially freedom of expression under Articles 19 and 19-A. While not a
deeply theoretical source, it is timely, locally grounded, and rich in capturing how the legal evolution of
PECA affects real-world stakeholders. Additionally, it reinforces the importance of analysing public and
journalistic resistance to digital authoritarianism. This source is especially valuable for our section on
civil society reaction, the role of vague legal wording in enabling censorship and for contrasting state
narratives with human rights advocacy.
Yongmei, C., & Afzal, J. “Impact of Enactment of ‘The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016’ as
Legal Support in Pakistan.” Academy of Education and Social Sciences Review, vol. 3, no. 2, 2023, pp.
203–212. https://doi.org/10.48112/aessr.v3i2.500.
This article explores the legislative foundation and institutional motivations behind the enactment of
PECA 2016, making it a critical source for the first stage of our thesis, which investigates the origins of
the law. Yongmei and Afzal examine how Pakistan’s state machinery, particularly the Federal
Investigation Agency (FIA) used PECA to address rising concerns over cybercrime, terrorism, and digital
financial fraud in the wake of growing digitalization. The authors trace how international pressure to
regulate cyber threats, domestic political urgency post-APS attacks, and technological gaps in law
enforcement capacity all contributed to PECA’s formation. The article also evaluates the extent to which
PECA was framed as a legal support tool for national security, rather than a rights-based framework. This
supports our argument that PECA's origin was security-centric rather than citizen-centric. While the
article adopts a more state-aligned perspective, it offers important context for understanding the
bureaucratic and legislative priorities at the time of PECA's drafting. It will be instrumental in
substantiating our claim that digital rights were secondary in the original framing of PECA. Furthermore,
it sets a baseline for contrasting the intent behind the 2016 law with the political motivations and public
backlash surrounding the 2025 amendment.
Tarana, Maham. “PECA 2025: Digital Governance or a Missed Opportunity for Data Protection?” The
Friday Times, 17 Mar. 2025, https://thefridaytimes.com/17-Mar-2025/peca-2025-digital-governance-
or-a-missed-opportunity-for-data-protection.
This article critically evaluates the 2025 amendment to PECA, making it essential for the final stage of
our analysis, which focuses on the amendment’s implications. Tarana argues that instead of introducing
robust privacy protections or democratic oversight, the revised PECA entrenches state control through
the creation of new institutions like the Social Media Protection & Regulatory Authority (SMPRA) and
the Social Media Protection Tribunal. The article further critiques the reallocation of cybercrime
investigation powers from the FIA to the newly formed NCCIA, questioning the lack of transparency and
data safeguards in these shifts. This commentary is especially valuable for understanding how the
amendment represents a missed legislative opportunity to align with international digital rights
frameworks such as the GDPR. It supports our claim that the amendment’s vague and broad language
invites overreach, particularly under Section 26(A) targeting ‘fake news’ and enables increased
surveillance without judicial oversight. Tarana’s piece also introduces a vital dimension which is data
protection. It connects to our paper’s reform-oriented conclusion. As a journalistic yet well-informed
perspective, this source is useful in highlighting the policy gaps and structural weaknesses that prevent
PECA from evolving into a rights-based digital governance model.
Malik, A. M. “EXPLAINER: How New Cybercrime Law Puts Digital Rights at Stake.” DAWN.COM, 3 Feb.
2025, https://www.dawn.com/news/1889378.
This article offers a detailed breakdown of the key provisions in the 2025 amendment to PECA,
especially those that pose risks to digital rights. Malik explains how the newly added Section 26(A),
which criminalizes ‘fake news’ is framed using vague and subjective terminology, creating potential for
overbroad censorship. The piece also analyzes the structural transformation of digital governance
through the creation of SMPRA and the Social Media Protection Tribunal, which operate with limited
public accountability. This makes the article a crucial source for the section of our thesis that examines
the amendment’s broader socio-legal implications. Malik underscores that the new law’s language
weakens the protection of free speech under Articles 19 and 19-A of the Constitution and opens the
door to increased surveillance and prosecution of dissenting voices, especially journalists and online
activists. Importantly, the article references concerns raised by rights groups such as HRCP and Digital
Rights Foundation, providing both legal and civil society perspectives. While journalistic in tone, it is fact-
rich and analytically useful, especially in mapping how state control over digital platforms is expanding
under the guise of public order. This source will be pivotal in grounding our critique of the amendment's
constitutionality and its likely effects on the future of online freedom in Pakistan.
