Introduction:
Punjab Defamation Act 2024, was one of the very first bills passed by the coalition government after taking the office. It was passed into law on 7th June 2024 by Acting Governor Malik Ahmed Khan amid strong protest from opposition lawmakers and media stakeholders. The law, according to its reasons and objectives, aims to curb fake news and crush hate speech. We will be delving into the legal merits and lacunae of the aforementioned legislation to analyze the extent to which it will diminish defamatory publications.
Positive Steps:
The Act has broadened the scope of defamation laws by including remarks and publications made on social media and other online portals. It brings informal communication via inter alia Instagram,Facebook, Twitter under the ambit of defamation laws. The Act has also specified a special procedure for defamation against women and individuals from minority communities which improves their representation online and makes them more confident in seeking justice.
Disputed Contents:
However, The act has a lot of controversy knitted to it due to its disputed sections and the haste in which the law was passed. The government did not consult any of the major stakeholders such as journalists, media houses etc before the passage of the bill. The Government, also, did not wait for the reports from all the special committees before taking the bill to the National Assembly. Such a haste portrays the bill in a negative energy and sheds light of the nefarious objectives behind the passage of the bill. The Act has alot of controversial sections that we will be examining in this article. The new defamation act does not allow a proper apology or contradiction of the said publication as a legal defense anymore. However, it was previously recognised by the Defamation Ordinance of 2002.
The definitions mentioned in the new legislation are highly vague and can be molded to fit any definition as suited to the Government. For example, Newspaper is defined as a newspaper and includes a website, application or other social media platform containing public news, intelligence or occurrences or remarks or observations or containing only, or principally, advertisements, printed or electronically or digitally issued for distribution to the public and published or issued periodically or in parts or numbers, and includes such other periodical works as the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette,declare to be a newspaper. This is a highly generalized definition, thus any sort of publication can be molded to fit this description.
The exclusion of the bill from the ambit of Qanun e Shahadat/ Law of evidence is yet another reason for caution with respect to the said act. The bill suggests that anyone can invoke this law without bringing any witnesses which raises concerns about the evidentiary standards of the procedure enacted under this act. Various lawyers have stated this is a clear violation to the Right to Fair trial, and thus violates Article 10 A of the Constitution.
The new tribunal set up under this act also attracts a significant amount of polemics.The appointment, removal and resignation of the tribunal are all in the hands of the Government of Punjab which is a clear violation of the principle of independent judiciary. This creates a conflict between the judiciary and the executives. Another contentioussection of this act is the apparent disparity between the procedural rules set for public office holders and private citizens. While cases where claimant is a private citizen will be tried under the tribunal, cases of the constitutional office holders will be tried by Lahore High Court. This creates an unequal environment and highlights that the law does nottreat the former and the latter as equals and hence, is a violation of The Constitution of Pakistan. The procedural critique of establishing a parallel judicial structure, highlighted by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, is also important. The 180-day time-limit for proceedings, while well-intentioned, may undermine the legal process’s quality and
lead to hasty punishments, bypassing existing witness laws. Additionally, the bill allows the government to appoint tribunal members from a pool recommended by the high court’s chief justice and offer them higher emoluments than the judiciary currently provides. This encroaches on judicial authority, leaving room for misuse and subversion for political purposes.
Other statutes like imposition of preliminary fine of up to RS 3 Million without a trial, and omission of informing the defendant within 14 days of filing the case by the claimant also sparked a heated debate. Critics argue that the Government could have amended the existing framework instead of producing an entirely new bill. The real problem is not the legal framework but the execution and intent behind the implementation of that framework. Existing frameworks could have done a similar job, however, the
government and the relevant judicial bodies need to pay attention towards fairly processing the cases and upholding the virtue of free speech while crushing fake news and hatred online or in print. The new act can also achieve these goals if it isn’t used as a legal tool to punish opposition lawmakers and critics of the government. If the tribunals established function as a neutral authority, the government can obtain the said objectives.
Comparing S499-502 of PPC:
The defamation provisions in the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) Sections 499-502 and the Punjab Defamation Act 2024 differ significantly in scope, penalties, and adaptation to modern contexts. While the PPC provides a general framework for defamation applicable nationwide, focusing on traditional forms like spoken and written statements, the Punjab Defamation Act 2024 is specifically tailored to address the evolving digital landscape. The PPC defines defamation broadly and prescribes penalties of up to two
years of imprisonment or fines, applicable uniformly across mediums. In contrast, thePunjab Defamation Act 2024 expands on these definitions to include digital content, such as social media posts, with enhanced penalties for online defamation due to its wider impact. The Act also introduces modern defenses, particularly for journalistic and public interest activities, and holds digital platforms accountable for hosting defamatory content. Additionally, it provides mechanisms for quick retractions and corrections
online, reflecting a more nuanced approach to defamation in the digital age.
One Response