The Provincial Assembly of Punjab in Pakistan passed the Punjab Defamation Bill 2024 on Monday, amid protests and concerns around free speech, according to local news outlet Pakistan Today. This legislation empowers the government to establish special tribunals to address cases involving the drafting, publishing or circulation of fake news.
While the official aim of the act is to counteract the spread of false information, the phraseology of the bill has led to dissent amongst some news outlets, leading to it being labeled as draconian.
As per the legislative text, any person found responsible for creating or distributing “false, misleading, and defamatory claims made via print, electronic, and social media,” whether against public officials or private individuals, can be prosecuted. Maximum penalties may include fines up to Rs3 million. The bill mandates that cases must be concluded within an interval of six months.
According to Article 3 of the act, defamation is classified as a civil wrong, and the defamation claim can be initiated without the requirement for establishing actual damage or direct loss consequent to the defamatory action. Once defamation is established, General Damages are presumed, with a minimum compensation requirement of 3 million Rupees.
The bill was introduced by the Minister of Finance and Parliamentary Affairs, Mujtaba Shuja Ur Rehman, on May 13, 2024. The Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) was at the forefront of this initiative, facing strong counterarguments from the Tehreek-e-Insaf political party, who shared concerns that the act could potentially impede the freedom of speech in Punjab.
In response to the ongoing debates around the proposed legislation, representatives from the media met with Punjab Information Minister Azma Bokhari requesting the deferral of the legislative vote.
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) expressed serious concerns regarding the draft act, characterising it as a threat to free expression. HRCP Chairperson, Asad Iqbal Butt, highlighted potential flaws in the process, particularly with the 180-day timeframe provided for resolving defamation claims, arguing it could compromise the judicial due process.