ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has directed the federal government and relevant regulatory bodies to ensure effective enforcement of laws against online harassment, blackmail and the unauthorised sharing of private content.
In an interim order on a petition filed by Dr Raana Ahsan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir directed the federal government, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) and National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) to submit detailed reports on measures taken to implement laws protecting citizens against the misuse of digital and electronic media.
The court also instructed the federal government to convene a meeting of the relevant institutions to address coordination gaps, clarify their legal responsibilities and develop a joint mechanism for effective enforcement.
Observing that the petition raised important questions concerning online safety and citizens’ fundamental rights, the court said the existing regulatory framework and its practical effectiveness required examination.
PTA figures show varying content-blocking compliance rates
The order referred to PTA statistics indicating differing levels of compliance by social media platforms with requests to block unlawful content.
According to the report, compliance stood at 59.01 per cent in cases involving Pakistan’s security and defence, 79.51pc in terrorism-related matters, 76.28pc in contempt of court cases and 76.54pc in matters concerning content against the glory of Islam.
The rate was 40.38pc for defamation and impersonation, 98.91pc for content relating to decency and morality, and 67.43pc for sectarian or hate speech.
Platform-specific figures showed compliance rates of 48.42pc for Twitter, 78.57pc for Facebook, 79.52pc for Instagram, 87.34pc for YouTube and 88.68pc for TikTok.
The court said the figures required a detailed explanation regarding the effectiveness of existing enforcement arrangements and the measures available when social media companies failed to comply with lawful requests.
The PTA report also stated that, after relevant rules were notified in October 2021, social media companies were approached to fulfil registration requirements and appoint local compliance and grievance officers. However, no affirmative response had been received, according to the report.
The authority further explained that limitations in its existing powers had largely confined its role to requesting content removal or taking technical measures against services. Social media operators frequently rejected requests by citing their respective community guidelines.
Authorities directed to explain enforcement gaps
The court noted that the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), 2016, provides for the establishment of the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority (SMRA), with responsibilities relating to online safety, users’ rights, platform regulation and the removal or blocking of unlawful content.
The law also provides for binding directions to social media platforms and mechanisms involving the Social Media Protection Tribunal and the Social Media Complaint Council.
Under its interim directions, the court ordered the respondents to submit comprehensive reports detailing their actions concerning online safety, unlawful content, protection of children and other vulnerable users, prevention of harassment and blackmail, and redressal of complaints involving digital media.
The PTA was specifically asked to explain the legal and practical obstacles it faced in enforcing directions against social media platforms, the reasons for not invoking coercive measures in cases of non-compliance and the steps taken to enforce registration and other applicable requirements.
The authority must also explain the varying compliance rates, follow-up action taken against non-compliant platforms and proposed measures to strengthen enforcement.
The federal government, through the secretary of the Ministry of Interior, was directed to arrange a meeting involving the Ministry of Information Technology, Pemra, the PTA, the NCCIA and other relevant departments.
The meeting will examine coordination gaps, clarify the responsibilities of each institution and consider legal remedies against platforms that fail to comply with lawful directions.
The court further directed that officers familiar with the relevant legal framework and authorised to propose practical measures should attend the meeting.
A joint report must then be submitted, outlining the issues discussed, shortcomings identified, decisions taken, responsibilities assigned to the relevant institutions and a practical implementation plan with a timeline.
Each respondent must also identify legislative, administrative, technical or institutional barriers to enforcement and explain the measures taken or proposed to address them. Supporting documents, including notifications, policies, correspondence and relevant directions, are to be provided where necessary.
The court clarified that its directions were intended to improve implementation of existing laws and coordination among institutions, without requiring any authority to exceed its legal powers or disregard procedural safeguards.
The case has been fixed for further hearing on November 23, 2026, when the court will examine the reports.
IHC warns of contempt proceedings over PCL order
Separately, the Islamabad High Court on Monday directed the authorities to implement its order to remove a citizen’s name from the Passport Control List (PCL) on the same day, warning that contempt proceedings would begin on Tuesday if the directive was not followed.
Justice Muhammad Azam Khan expressed displeasure over the failure to implement the earlier order while hearing a contempt petition.
During the proceedings, the state counsel informed the court that intelligence agencies’ reports were available in a related case. Officials from the Directorate General of Immigration and Passports said a review committee meeting scheduled for the previous week had not taken place for unspecified reasons.
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the citizen’s name should be removed immediately after the court had granted relief.
Justice Azam Khan observed that the authorities were required to comply with the court’s order regardless of reports submitted by intelligence agencies or other departments. He said the proper course for any party dissatisfied with a judicial decision was to challenge it through an appeal.
Passport and immigration officials tendered an unconditional apology, stating that their committees were not empowered to review or override judicial orders. They also acknowledged shortcomings in the handling of the matter.
The judge questioned the formation of committees to scrutinise court orders and asked whether bureaucratic bodies were assuming the role of superior courts. He criticised the authorities for addressing compliance only after contempt petitions were filed.
Justice Azam Khan said courts provided relief to vulnerable citizens who had nowhere else to seek justice, warning that repeated disregard for judicial orders could erode public confidence in the justice system.
He added that relief would not be extended to individuals involved in anti-state activities, but stressed that court directives must be followed unless overturned through the proper legal process.
Rejecting the prospect of accepting another unconditional apology, the judge warned that contempt proceedings could result in punishment, including imprisonment.
