A journalist in Dera Ghazi Khan has filed a cybercrime complaint under Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) for online harassment and defamation, highlighting the complexities and contradictions surrounding a controversial law that media practitioners frequently criticize.
Bashir Ahmed Balouch, a local reporter, took action after experiencing a deluge of abusive, vulgar, and defamatory comments in response to a Facebook post he made concerning Kashmir and law enforcement issues. Balouch shared screenshots with local police authorities, who subsequently validated the abusive content and registered a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 20 and 24 of PECA. These sections specifically address offenses infringing on an individual’s dignity and cyberstalking.
The online harassment, traced back to a user identifiable only by a telephone number, included explicit personal attacks aimed at damaging Balouch’s reputation and mental well-being. Law enforcement in Dera Ghazi Khan has commenced preliminary investigations into the complaint, indicating the seriousness with which authorities are treating the matter.
The case has drawn widespread attention because it underscores a notable contradiction inherent in the use of PECA. Pakistani journalists, human rights campaigners, and advocates for digital freedom have long critiqued the act as oppressive and vulnerable to misuse, especially in silencing dissent and curbing press freedoms. Yet, Balouch’s decision to resort to PECA demonstrates an unusual reversal, where a journalist—normally opposed to the law—embraces its provisions for protection.
This irony was underscored further by a veteran journalist from Multan, who described Balouch’s situation as “deeply ironic,” explaining that although journalists consistently campaign against PECA’s restrictive nature, they find the same law essential when confronted with serious online threats. He remarked, “It’s a paradox we live with. We campaign against PECA’s misuse, but when push comes to shove, it’s one of the few tools we have against digital abuse.”
Digital rights advocates and human rights defenders share similar feelings of ambivalence regarding PECA. While conceding the law’s problematic characteristics, including overly broad language susceptible to arbitrary enforcement, they also recognize its current practical necessity. In an environment where online harassment of journalists and public personalities in Pakistan is increasingly prevalent, PECA remains one of the limited viable options available to victims seeking legal recourse against cyber abuse.
This incident has reignited public and professional debates around the future of PECA, prompting renewed discussions about potential reforms. Critics demand clearer language, structured oversight, and stronger accountability to reduce improper use. Conversely, some advocates believe a revised and more balanced version of the Act—rather than its wholesale repeal—could effectively protect individuals from harassment without enabling censorship.
As investigations proceed, Balouch’s case highlights a critical question facing Pakistani journalists and lawmakers: Can journalists simultaneously oppose an oppressive law while depending on it for protection, or do such cases underscore the urgent necessity of reforming PECA into legislation which safeguards freedom and dignity rather than undermining them?
