The recently passed Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) Amendment, 2025, abruptly sparked debate in Pakistan’s political and social spheres. The bill sparked extended criticism from human rights bodies, politicians, journalists, and activists worldwide for its potentially adverse impact on fundamental rights, especially freedom of expression and access to information in the country.
On the other hand, the government defends the amendment as an essential step to modernize cybercrime legislation.
“The PECA (Amendment) Act, 2025 aims to modernize and enhance the legislative framework for combating cybercrimes in Pakistan, ensuring alignment with present-day requirements and addressing the growing complexities of cyber threats. It seeks to safeguard citizens, institutions, and the economy from digital vulnerabilities while fostering a secure digital environment. Under the proposed amendment, establishing the Digital Rights Protection Authority (DRPA) will protect citizens’ digital rights, regulate online content, and promote secure and responsible Internet usage.”
The official draft of the amendment
In policy-making, the fundamental inquiry is how to justify an intervention/policy that intrudes upon fundamental rights. Lawrence Gostin (2000) argues that because government interventions often intrude on fundamental rights and involve resources (economic), they need justification. Therefore, Public policy authorities/advocates must bear the burden of justification for the laws and regulations they design, advocate, and implement. Gostin designed a Policy Justification Framework that offers a structural lens to analyze policies/ interventions by assessing their objectivity, effectiveness, economic efficiency, proportionality, and fairness. This article employs Lawrence Gostin’s Policy Justification Framework to evaluate the PECA (Amendment) Act, 2025.
Lawrence Gostin’s Policy Justification Framework
Gostin’s framework begins with a simple question: Does the intervention address a significant problem? What are the objectives? To begin with, the PECA Amendment 2025, by definition, seeks to address the growing complexities of cyber threats in Pakistan. The government believes that the existing legal framework is outdated and insufficient to combat modern cybercrimes, such as online harassment, data breaches, and cyberterrorism.
The aim of establishing the DRPA is to create a secure digital environment by regulating online content and protecting citizens’ digital rights. On the contrary, human rights bodies, journalists, and experts argue that its broad and vague definitions of terms will suppress dissent and restrict freedom of expression. In a statement, HRCP said the act does not “satisfactorily define” what constituted ‘fake news’ and instead refers to “vague outcomes such as public fear, panic or disorder or unrest. The problem, therefore, lies in balancing the need for cybersecurity with the protection of fundamental rights.
The second step in Gostin’s framework tries to discover whether the policy addresses the defined problem. The effectiveness of this amendment is widely discussed in several forums. Proponents believe it will enhance the country’s capacity to fight cybercrimes, unlike critics who caution that it could be used to silence journalists, activists, and opposition voices. The main concern is whether the policy will achieve its objectives or worsen the situation by creating fear and censorship.
The third phase of the framework inquires about the economic cost. Are the economic costs worth the potential benefits? The economic cost of implementing this amendment includes the establishment of a new digital media regularity authority DRPA, training of officials, and other legal formalities. Likewise, its potential to stifle innovation and discourage entrepreneurship could have long-term economic consequences. If the intervention remains restrictive, it may deter foreign investment and hold back the dream of Pakistan’s growing digital economy.
The final phase of the framework evaluates the proportionality and fairness of any intervention—ensuring that the potential benefits of a policy outweigh its burdens and that the distribution of benefits and burdens is fair. In this case, the government insists that the amendment is crucial to protecting national security and public order. Experts and activists fear it will disproportionately interfere with fundamental rights and be used against opponent voices. Several human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, caution that the amendment would “further tighten the government’s grip over Pakistan’s heavily controlled digital landscape.”
Additionally, historical evidence shows such restrictions on free speech and increased surveillance are likely to fall disproportionately on journalists, activists, and marginalized groups and may benefit authoritarian regimes.
The amendment presents a complex case of balancing cybersecurity with fundamental rights. Analyzing PECA (Amendment) 2025 through Gostin’s Policy Justification Framework, it becomes clear that intervention has significant flaws in its design and implementation. While the need for updated and secure cyberspace is undeniable, the law’s effectiveness, vague definitions, harsh penalties, and lack of transparency are risks doing more harm than good. The lack of inclusivity further undermines its credibility and raises concerns about the motivations behind this amendment. To put it briefly, the PECA (amendment) 2025, in its current form, appears to lack sufficient justification.
The government must revisit PECA ( Amendment) 2025 to ensure it aligns with constitutional rights and international standards. Transparent public consultations, clear definitions of offenses, and safeguards against misuse are essential to making the policy effective and fair. Transparency is about drafting laws and ensuring that enforcement mechanisms are clear and free from political bias. Without these reforms, PECA (Amendment ) 2025 risks becoming a tool of control rather than a solution to Pakistan’s digital challenges.
If you want to submit your articles, research papers, and book reviews, please check the Submissions page.
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
He is pursuing an M Phil in Public Policy as a scholar at the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE). He completed his undergraduate studies in Public Administration and Governance at the National University of Modern Languages (NUML), Islamabad. His professional journey includes valuable experience in research projects, particularly focusing on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) during his tenure at the National Assembly of Pakistan.