ISLAMABAD: The Federal Cabinet has constituted a ministerial committee comprising its key allies to finalise Criminal Laws Amendment Bill, 2023 meant to tighten the noose around those involved in scandalizing the judiciary and armed forces, after disagreement within the Cabinet was witnessed, well-informed sources told Business Recorder.

On February 13, 2023, the Interior Division briefed the Cabinet that recently the country had witnessed a spate of scandalous, derogatory and vicious attacks on certain institutions of the state including the judiciary and armed forces of Pakistan and officers thereof.

It is well known that a deliberate cyber campaign had been launched by certain quarters for self-serving motives, with the objective of inciting and nurturing hatred against important State institutions and their officials. Such attacks were focused on undermining the integrity, stability, and independence of our State Institutions.

Unlike others, officials from Judiciary and Armed Forces do not have the option of stepping forward and negating scandalous/derogatory remarks on the media.

Interior Division, after detailed deliberations with relevant stakeholders, had proposed amendments in the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC), and in this regard a Criminal Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2023 had been prepared.

Given the long tested legal principle noted in Section 196 of the CrPC, prior approval of the federal government before taking cognizance of the case or registration of the FIR against any person had been made mandatory to avoid misuse of the proposed newly inserted Section in the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The Bill had been vetted by the Ministry of Law and Justice as per Rules of Business, 1973.

During discussion, the need for the proposed amendment was highlighted and it was pointed out that a change in Schedule was needed to be carried out to conform with proposed section 500A, making the offence punishable with simple imprisonment.

The Cabinet was further informed that despite presence of Section 500 relating to offence of defamation there was a long-standing need to have a separate provision in the law to protect the judiciary and armed forces from scandalous and derogatory attacks.

It was explained that the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined in the Constitution, including freedom of expression, had certain caveats, and Article 19 of the constitution guarantees freedom of expression to all citizens but this is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. These restrictions may be among others in the interest of security and defence of Pakistan and in relation to contempt of court.

However, while drafting the proposed amendment ample care had been exercised to obviate misuse of the law, firstly, the intention to ridicule or scandalize had to be established, secondly, the FIR could only be registered after approval of the federal government and thirdly, an explanation had been added that it would not be an offence if such a statement or information was true. It was also proposed that if the House desired the punishment could be reduced to three years instead of five years.

In addition, it was pointed out that social media in Pakistan was enjoying unbridled freedom, which was not a norm internationally.

The liberty to scandalize and ridicule state institutions was not available even in developed countries. It was argued that providing due protection to state institutions in law was necessary, however, enough safety valves had been ensured so that that law is not misused for oppression.

Some of the cabinet members, however, cautioned against bringing such legislation in haste and voiced the apprehension that it would invite a lot of criticism from the civil society and media. It was advocated that in presence of defamation laws there was no special need to bring a new legislation, but rather effective implementation of existing laws was required.

It was also argued that if certain state institutions were to be protected then the Parliament and other public office holders also deserved similar protection. They recommended further debate to develop a consensus before going through with the legislation.

It was also suggested that in-principle approval of Cabinet may be granted as reservations could be addressed in Parliament, while others sought more time for internal discussion.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023