On May 20, the Punjab Assembly passed a controversial defamation bill despite strong opposition from journalists and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-backed Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC). The Punjab Defamation Bill,2024, which allows for the establishment of special tribunals to address “fake news,” was passed by a voice vote after the government refused to delay voting despite requests from journalists.

The bill has drawn criticism for potentially curbing free media. It proposes a special tribunal to handle cases related to the drafting, publishing, or airing of “fake news,” with the power to impose fines of up to Rs 3 million. However, cases involving allegations against individuals holding constitutional posts will be heard by the high court.

The bill also includes provisions for government legal assistance to women and transgender individuals in defamation cases. Despite opposition claims that the bill was rushed through without proper consultation, the government defended its decision, stating that the bill had been thoroughly discussed by a special committee.

Journalists staged a walkout from the assembly in protest, calling the bill a “black law” and accusing the government of betrayal. They plan to hold further protests and are considering additional actions.

On May 13, the Punjab Defamation Bill 2024 was presented at the provincial Punjab Assembly without stakeholder consultations. Under the law, fines can be imposed and social media accounts can be blocked of those found to be spreading defamatory content.

In a statement, the Pakistan Press Foundation highlighted the lack of clarity, transparency, and consultation in the drafting and approval of the bill, pointing out the potential for misuse against journalists and media professionals.  PPF had called for meaningful consultations with relevant stakeholders before further amendments or legislation were passed.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has also voiced grave concerns about the bill. In a statement, the HRCP said the bill’s content and language are troubling on several counts. It proposes a parallel judicial structure for defamation claims, which the HRCP believes violates fundamental rights and due process. The bill also empowers the government to appoint judges to these tribunals with higher allowances and benefits than the existing judiciary, raising questions about impartiality.

The HRCP further criticized the bill’s requirement for all defamation claims to be resolved within 180 days and the authorization of preliminary decrees without trial, which it believes will severely impact freedom of expression and dissent. Additionally, the HRCP highlighted concerns about the creation of a special category for holders of constitutional office, arguing that it violates the principle of equality before the law.