LHC, IHC take up pleas against PECA
The Lahore High Court has sought replies from the PTA and the Punjab government on petitions filed by the PUJ and others challenging the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act 2025.
During the proceedings, Justice Farooq Haider expressed displeasure over the non-submission of replies by the Punjab government and the PTA. However, the federal government had already submitted its response.
The PTA's counsel requested additional time to file a reply. Granting the request, Justice Haider warned that if the PTA fails to submit its response by the next hearing, legal action will be taken.
Meanwhile, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) issued notices to the respondents on another identical petition against the Prevention of Electronic Crime Amendment Act 2025 (PECA 2025). The court also summoned Attorney General of Pakistan for assistance in the case on next hearing.
Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas of the IHC heard the petition against the PECA Amendment Act filed through lawyer Adil Aziz Qazi. The court noted that there are other similar petitions pending before the court.
The court issued notices to the parties and adjourned the hearing till April 17. The petitioner has named ministries of information, law and justice and others as respondents in the case. It may be mentioned that the identical petitions of PFUJ, Islamabad High Court Journalists Association and others against the PECA Amendment Act are also under hearing at high court. (More input from APP)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
Ensure translation of evidence into Urdu simultaneously: LHC
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) remarked that Urdu had been declared as the language of subordinate courts since 2015 but the same has not been implemented in Punjab till now. The court said the Supreme Court on September 8, 2015, had directed the government to implement Urdu as an official language but unfortunately no significant steps have been taken and up-till now evidence is being recorded in English in sessions courts. The court directed all the sessions' judges, additional sessions' judges, as well as, judges of special courts to ensure translation of the evidence of a witness recorded in English into Urdu simultaneously. The court passed this order in murder reference of Irfan alias Pomi after noting that the translation of the prosecution evidence and the statements of the accused have been made by the reader of the court after recording the whole evidence. The court said that law is very much clear on the point that the evidence should be taken down in the language of witnesses by the magistrate or judge himself or be recorded in his presence, hearing and superintendence. However, the translation of the evidence of a witness recorded in English should be translated into Urdu simultaneously at the same sitting, as well as, in the presence of witnesses, accused and the presiding officer, the court added. The court said this is necessary as if any ambiguity in the evidence recorded in English comes on the surface, the same can be removed in the light of translation of evidence in Urdu. The court said normally the witnesses during the trial depose in Urdu and the presiding officer, while transcribing the same in English, dictates to his stenographer and hence Urdu transcript of such deposition is not prepared. The court said this practice diminishes the very purpose of preparing and keeping Urdu translation of evidence recorded by the presiding officer in English. The court; therefore, directed the registrar to send copies of this judgment to all the sessions judges and judges of special courts, as well as, the secretary, ministry of law and justice Islamabad and the secretary ministry of law and parliamentary affairs Punjab for compliance. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Horror of child pornography
Listen to article Another horrifying incident has come out of the hotbed of child exploitation, Muzaffargarh. A young boy, sent to collect his brother's unpaid wages, was sexually assaulted and filmed by a man his family once relied on for employment. This case, shocking as it is, comes on the heels of an even darker international child pornography ring recently exposed in the same district. That Muzaffargarh has surfaced twice in a matter of weeks for crimes of such depravity is no coincidence. It is a reflection of a deep rot, one that festers in the absence of credible child protection mechanisms. In these rural stretches of Punjab, where trust is easily exploited and oversight is minimal, predators thrive. And yet, the state continues to respond with the same laxity. Pakistan does not lack the legal framework to prosecute such crimes. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2016 and the Zainab Alert, Response and Recovery Act, 2020 are both designed to deter child sexual abuse and child pornography, with penalties ranging from long-term imprisonment to capital punishment. But laws alone are no match for a system that is broken at every level — from undertrained police officers to overburdened courts, from unmonitored cyber spaces to non-functional child protection units. Predators are emboldened when they know investigations will be half-hearted and the justice system is too slow to deliver. What is needed now is not another press conference, but a national-level response. The FlA's cybercrime wing must be strengthened with advanced tools, training and jurisdiction to act swiftly across provinces. Child protection bureaus must be activated in every district with the authority to intervene and the funding to support victims. Police must be trained in both handling abuse cases and managing digital trails of child pornography. Most importantly, the harshest punishment should be meted out to perpetrators as a form of deterrence.
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Express Tribune
Govt continues to score legal victories
After the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the government has got another major victory on Thursday as the constitutional bench endorsed the transfer of three judges from different high courts to the Islamabad High Court (IHC). The government's legal team must be jubilant that in view of the majority order, Justice Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar will continue as acting chief justice of the IHC, which is seen as crucial for the executive authority. The majority order will further frustrate the five IHC judges, who have been facing a tough time since writing a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) regarding interference of agencies in the judicial functions, particularly on matters related to the PTI. A senior government functionary admits that the 26th amendment is the outcome of the six IHC judges' letter. Constitutional Bench (CB) was created through the 26th constitutional amendment. The real purpose of the amendment was to control the superior judiciary for the stability of the current political set-up. The present government doesn't want that courts should give any substantive relief to the incarcerated former prime minister as he is perceived as a threat to the system. Since November last year, legal circles were keenly watching the outcome of three cases that they considered would determine how far the judiciary could go to assert its independence. The constitutional bench did not disappoint the government as two of the cases had been decided in its favour. Firstly, trial of civilians in the military courts have been endorsed by the CB. Now, the government initiative regarding the transfer of three judges to the IHC has also been endorsed by the constitutional bench led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar. It is interesting to note that the CB is not taking up petitions against the 26th constitutional amendment. If things stand the way as they are, it is no surprise that the government may get another victory in the reserved seats case soon. The chance that the July 12 order regarding the allocation of reserved seats will survive is very low. If the CB sets aside the decision, then the government will get a two-thirds majority in parliament. Moreover, in view of the "satisfactory performance", the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) by a majority vote extended the tenure of present CB judges until November 30. Unlike the past practice, CJP Yahya Afridi also voted in favour of giving an extension to the CB judges' tenure. Earlier, he was advocating that all SC judges should be included in the CB. The government has also been successful in appointing like-minded judges in the superior judiciary. Now, it would easily manage to appoint like-minded' chief justices in the high courts on July 1. Legal opinion Abdul Moiz Jaferii advocate says that the short order in the judges transfer case is disappointing. The majority has focused on the process of transfer itself being acceptable without dilating upon the particular transfer to Islamabad that was effected, how it was effected and what it aimed to achieve. Jaferii states that the order completely ignores the transfer of judges being expressly temporary in nature by the very language of the Constitution. It proceeds to validate such transfers on the premise of them being safeguarded by needing input from within the judiciary. "It then allows the president to redo the transfer and make clear the period of transfer and the seniority of the judges themselves, effectively opposing the very basis on which the transfers were validated: that this process was within the judiciary and insulated." He states that it is a bizzare reading of a plain constitutional premise. It ignores completely the scheme of appointment envisaged in Article 175A. And if one were to count the peculiar circumstances leading to this petition, completely ignored in the majority order but expressly considered by the minority, its reasoning becomes obvious. The minority opinion, other than the roundabout poetry at the end; is constitutionally sound", he adds. A former law officer says that the majority has taken a literal view. "It is premised on good faith and institution oriented bona fide exercise within the judiciary by three chief justices. If all three CJs act independently and in the interest of the institution, there should be no problem. Perhaps this was the reason Article 200 was inserted and it is working well in India. But if they don't act independently, this will become an instrument of coercion and silencing some judges, as in the present case. The majority has looked purely on law but not considered ground realities and facts." He says that as in many recent important constitutional cases, emotional advocacy and rhetoric continues instead of calm and cogent arguments. It is showing results every day more so when independent minded judges have already been sidelined and disarmed. At least the majority has left the question of temporary or permanent appointment. There is some contradiction as one the one hand the whole exercise is within the judiciary yet the matter has been sent to President alone. The whole exercise should be ordered to be conducted again but now the then CJ, IHC has gone. Who will give input on temporary or permanent status these judges, he adds. Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar advocate has stated that the majority decision is constitutionally valid, well-founded, and aligned with the spirit and intent of the constitution. He emphasised that the 3-2 majority judgment rightly affirms that under Article 200(1) of the Constitution, such transfers are permissible with the concurrence of the President, Chief Justices of the concerned high courts, and consent of the transferee judges. The court held that these conditions were conditionally met and found no mala fide on the part of the President. He noted that the president had issued a notification on February 1, 2024, under Article 200(1), transferring Justice Dogar, Justice Sumro, and Justice Muhammad Asif to the Islamabad High Court. Their inter-se seniority was later determined by then Chief Justice Aamer Farooq on 11th February 2025. However, this seniority order was challenged before the Supreme Court under Article 184(3). Explaining further, he said Article 194 makes no requirement for a second oath when a judge is transferred between High Courts, as the oath is to the Constitution itself — not to any specific court or jurisdiction. This is a principle recognized across other constitutional systems as well. Hafiz Ahsaan added that Article 200(1) does not specify whether a transfer must be temporary or permanent. Following the judgment, it now falls to the President to determine the nature of the transfers. If deemed temporary, no further seniority determination is needed; if permanent, the President must determine seniority based solely on the judges' original appointment dates. He stressed that under Article 200(3), the service terms of a judge cannot be adversely altered upon transfer, thereby preserving their rank, privileges, and entitlements. He further observed that the President, as directed by the Court, must independently determine seniority without relying on advice from the federal government. If the President declares the transfers permanent, and seniority is accordingly based on initial appointment, Justice Dogar may emerge as the senior-most among the three — qualifying him for consideration as Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court under Article 175A through the Judicial Commission of Pakistan. Contrasting with India's centralized seniority list, he noted that Pakistan's Constitution entrusts each High Court to determine seniority based on initial appointment — a practice also followed in the UK, US, Canada, and Australia. Hafiz Ahsaan while concluding said the 3-2 judgment is constitutionally sustainable and reinforces the legal structure under articles 200, 194, and 175A. The president's forthcoming decision will help shape a lasting constitutional precedent on judicial seniority and the limits of presidential authority in such matters.
