ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has ordered enforcement of relevant laws to prevent online harassment, blackmailing and the unauthorised publicity of private material, redressing the complaints relating to misuse of electronic and digital media.
The court directed the federal government, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) and the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) to submit comprehensive reports on the implementation of laws aimed at preventing online harassment, blackmail and unauthorised dissemination of private content.
Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, in an interim order in a petition filed by Dr Raana Ahsan, also directed the federal government to convene a meeting of the relevant institutions to identify gaps in coordination, clarify their statutory responsibilities and devise a coordinated mechanism for effective enforcement of the applicable laws.
The court observed that the petition raised substantial questions of public importance concerning online safety, misuse of electronic, digital and broadcast media, the effectiveness of existing regulatory mechanisms and the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights.
The order referred to statistics submitted by the PTA showing varying compliance rates with requests to block unlawful online content. According to the report, the compliance rate was 59.01% in matters concerning Pakistan’s security and defence, 79.51% in terrorism-related cases, 76.28% in cases of contempt of court, 76.54% in matters involving content against the glory of Islam, 40.38% in cases of defamation or impersonation, 98.91% in matters relating to decency and morality, and 67.43% in cases involving sectarian or hate speech.
The platform-wise figures showed a compliance rate of 48.42% for Twitter, 78.57% for Facebook, 79.52% for Instagram, 87.34% for YouTube and 88.68% for TikTok.
The court observed that the figures required a considered explanation regarding the effectiveness of existing mechanisms and the measures available to ensure compliance with lawful directions.
According to the PTA report, requests were made to social media companies following the notification of the relevant rules in October 2021 to fulfil registration requirements and appoint local compliance and grievance officers. However, no affirmative response had been received to date.
The PTA also stated that the limited scope of its existing powers had, in practice, restricted its role to approaching social media operators for content removal or taking technical measures against their services. Requests were frequently declined by the operators on the basis of their respective community guidelines, the report stated.
The court observed that the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), 2016, provides for the establishment of the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority (SMRA), with functions including online safety, protection of users’ rights, regulation and enlistment of social media platforms, and removal or blocking of unlawful content.
The law also provides for binding directions to social media platforms and mechanisms involving the Social Media Protection Tribunal and the Social Media Complaint Council.
In its interim directions, the court required all respondents, particularly the federal government through the concerned ministries, Pemra, the PTA and the NCCIA, to submit comprehensive reports detailing measures taken to implement the relevant legal provisions concerning online safety, unlawful content, protection of children and other vulnerable users, prevention of harassment and blackmail, and redress of complaints relating to misuse of electronic and digital media.
The PTA was specifically directed to explain the practical and legal difficulties, if any, encountered in enforcing its directions against social media platforms and service providers, the reasons for not invoking coercive provisions in cases of non-compliance, the steps taken to invoke such measures and the reasons why registration and other applicable requirements had not been effectively implemented.
The respondents concerned were also directed to explain the compliance statistics, including the reasons for low and varying compliance rates across categories of unlawful content and social media platforms, the follow-up action taken in cases of non-compliance and measures proposed to improve the enforcement mechanism.
The federal government, through the secretary of the Ministry of Interior, was directed to convene a meeting involving the Ministry of Information Technology, Pemra, the PTA, the NCCIA and other relevant ministries or departments.
The meeting will identify areas requiring inter-agency coordination, clarify statutory responsibilities and formulate a coordinated mechanism for effective implementation of the law. It will also consider the practical difficulties highlighted in the PTA report, available legal remedies against non-compliant social media platforms and measures to ensure that complaints are dealt with promptly and in accordance with law.
The court directed the concerned institutions to ensure that the meeting was attended by officers familiar with the relevant legal framework and authorised to propose practical measures.
A joint report must subsequently be submitted to the court, setting out the matters discussed, deficiencies identified, measures agreed upon, responsibilities assigned to the respective institutions and a practicable implementation framework, together with a timeline.
Each respondent was also directed to identify any legislative, administrative, technical or institutional impediments to effective enforcement and specify the steps taken or proposed within its lawful mandate to address them. The reports must be supported by relevant particulars and, where necessary, copies of notifications, directions, policies, correspondence and other material relied upon.
The court clarified that the purpose of the directions was to facilitate effective implementation of the law, promote coordination among the concerned institutions and ensure that statutory remedies for the protection of citizens were practically available. It added that nothing in the order should be construed as directing any authority to act beyond its statutory mandate or disregard procedural safeguards prescribed by law.
The matter has been fixed for further hearing on November 23, 2026, for consideration of the reports. Meanwhile, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday directed the authorities to implement its decision to remove a citizen’s name from the Passport Control List (PCL) the same day, warning that contempt of court proceedings would commence on Tuesday (today) if the order was not complied with.
Justice Muhammad Azam Khan expressed displeasure over the failure to implement the court’s earlier order while hearing a contempt petition concerning the matter. During the hearing, the state counsel informed the court that reports from intelligence agencies were available in a related case.
Officials of the Directorate General of Immigration and Passports stated that a meeting of the review committee had been scheduled for the previous week but could not take place for unspecified reasons.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that once the court had allowed the petition, the citizen’s name should immediately be removed from the list. Justice Azam Khan observed that regardless of reports submitted by intelligence agencies or other authorities, the court’s order had to be implemented, or an appeal could be filed against it.
The passport and immigration officials tendered an unconditional apology, maintaining that their committees did not review or override judicial orders. They acknowledged, however, that there was room for improvement in the handling of the matter.
The judge questioned the creation of a committee to scrutinise court orders and asked whether the bureaucracy had assumed the role of a superior court. He also criticised the authorities for waiting until contempt petitions were filed before addressing non-compliance.
Justice Azam Khan observed that courts provided relief to vulnerable citizens who had nowhere else to turn and warned that repeated disregard for judicial orders could undermine public confidence in the justice system.
He said the court would not grant relief to anyone involved in anti-state activities, but stressed that judicial directions must be followed unless overturned through the proper legal process.
The judge rejected the prospect of accepting another unconditional apology, warning that contempt proceedings could lead to punishment and imprisonment.
Originally published in The News
