Criticism on judges: SCBA’s condemnation in contradiction with IHC CJ’s observation

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has condemned the ‘derogatory and contemptuous’ campaign on social media against Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Athar Minallah despite his previous observations on the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA).

The SCBA said in a statement that the propaganda campaign aims to malign the judiciary, whereas, the association also endorsed IHC CJ’s observations on PECA law and reiterated its stance that the draconian law will be used to silence political opponents and target the freedom of speech.

The association demanded strict action by law enforcement agencies and relevant authorities against those behind the propaganda campaign.

The opposition, journalists and legal fraternity have expressed their resentments on the amended version of PECA 2016, on the other hand, they showed anger over the lack of action following the slanderous social media campaigns.

The PECA amendment ordinance had been introduced by the federal government to take strict action against those spreading fake news and slanderous campaigns against individuals.

PECA case: IHC stops FIA from detaining people

Last year, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Athar Minallah observed that the judiciary is open to criticism and judges are not immune from being criticised.

IHC CJ Athar Minallah gave the observation in a detailed order on the post-arrest bail plea of a local politician of the PPP local leader who had been sent to jail under PECA 2016 for criticising former CJP Justice Gulzar Ahmed.

In its order, he had observed that public criticism would not affect the independence of a judge but unthoughtful criticism should be avoided.

PECA amendment ordinance

President Arif Alvi had promulgated two ordinances on Sunday that would bring changes in the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, (PECA) 2016, and the Elections Act, 2017.

Both laws were signed by the president after the Cabinet approved them. The changes made in the electronic crimes act have been made under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022.

Under the ordinance, the definition of a “person” has been broadened to include any company, association, institution, organisation, authority, or any other. Furthermore, anyone found guilty of attacking a person’s “identity” will now be sentenced to five years instead of three years.

FIA has 96,000 cybercrime complaints pending under PECA, says PM

The ordinance also states the informant or the complainant shall be “aggrieved person, his authorised representative, or his guardian, where such person is a minor or a member of the public in respect of a public figure or a holder of public office”.

Cases falling under PECA will be supervised by a high court and the trial court will have to conclude the case within six months, the state news agency reported.

“The court shall submit a monthly progress report of any pending trial to the concerned high court and shall give reasons for the inability of the court to expeditiously conclude the trial,” says the ordinance.

Apart from sending the report to the high courts, copies of the progress report will be sent to the law secretary if the case is registered in the Islamabad Capital Territory. However, if a case is registered in a province, then the copies of the report will be submitted to the “provincial secretaries of prosecution departments, the prosecutor general or advocate general”.

The ordinance also authorises the high court to issue “fresh timelines” of a case if it finds the “reasons” given by the trial court “plausible” and beyond its control. The ordinance also empowers the high courts to summon federal or provincial government officers to remove any “difficulties, hindrances and obstacles” it finds in the case.

If the law secretaries find that the case was delayed due to the “presiding officer or any of its functionaries” then they may inform the high court. If the high court is of the view that the delay in the disposal of a trial is attributable to the presiding officer of the court or any other court functionary then they can initiate or “direct commencement of appropriate disciplinary proceedings.”

The ordinance also empowers the chief justice of every high court to nominate a judge along with other officers.