Editorial
Since May 2025 dust licking defeat to India and then broker the historic Islamabad Talks between Iran and United States, Pakistan is being considered as the one of the strongest countries on earth and a peacemaker and global stabilizer. In this backdrop, two proposed bills—one presented in National Assembly by PMLN led government and one in Punjab Assembly by the same party are leaving the impression that everything can be done against public through the democratic institutions and earning bad name to country, providing enough material to adversaries of Pakistan that margalisation of public rights in Pakistan is not a norm rather an institutionalized practice by the government.
The Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) (Amendment) Bill 2026 has raised significant concerns regarding its provisions that allow telecom companies to access private property without the owner’s consent. The bill grants telecom companies the right to install equipment and towers on public and private properties without seeking consent from the owners. Critics argue that this could lead to violations of property rights and privacy, as property owners’ silence may be interpreted as consent for telecom installations. The bill has been stalled in the Senate due to concerns from lawmakers who believe it undermines constitutional property rights. Prime Minister after facing criticism had established a committee to review the Bill before it could be passed by the Senate and could become the Act of Law.
The second strange move of PMLN government is documented in Punjab Assembly where it moved Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, 2026. This bill reminds the same—- government can take any action against anybody by using administrative powers and Pakistani media is by-wording this bill with Criminal Tribal Act of British Raj of 1871. That Act classified entire communities as hereditary criminals, subjecting their members to registration, movement restrictions, mandatory roll calls, and settlement in designated enclosures.
Pakistan has worked hard in recent months to improve its standing on the international stage. Through active diplomacy and engagement in regional affairs, Islamabad has projected itself as a country seeking stability, dialogue, and constructive partnerships. Such diplomatic dividends, however, are sustainable only when accompanied by equally strong commitments to constitutional governance and the rule of law at home. It is against this backdrop that two proposed pieces of legislation—the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) (Amendment) Bill, 2026, and the Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, 2026—deserve careful scrutiny. Both have generated public debate because they touch upon a fundamental question confronting every democracy: how should the state balance legitimate security objectives with the protection of individual rights?
No responsible government can ignore the complex security challenges Pakistan faces. Terrorism, organized crime, narcotics trafficking, cybercrime, extortion, hate speech, land grabbing, and digital fraud continue to threaten public order. The state has both the authority and the obligation to respond effectively. Citizens expect governments to maintain law and order and to protect lives and property. The issue, therefore, is not whether stronger legal tools are necessary. The question is whether those tools are accompanied by sufficient constitutional safeguards.
The proposed amendment to Pakistan’s telecommunications law illustrates this dilemma. The legislation seeks to facilitate the expansion of telecommunications infrastructure at the cost of private rights of an individual though the Ministry of Information Technology has clarified that unauthorized entry is not intended, the public controversy demonstrates the importance of legislative precision. Property rights enjoy constitutional protection, and any ambiguity affecting those rights inevitably creates uncertainty. The government’s decision to constitute a review committee before Senate consideration is therefore a prudent step.
More extensive concerns surround the Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, 2026. The legislation proposes a comprehensive preventive framework involving intelligence committees at multiple administrative levels, expanded surveillance mechanisms, electronic monitoring, maintenance of offender databases, and a range of administrative measures against persons considered habitual offenders or involved in anti-social behaviour.
The bill identifies an extensive list of activities ranging from organized crime and narcotics offences to cybercrime, extortion, harassment, illegal road blockades, online blackmail, aerial firing, and hate speech. Few would disagree that these are serious issues requiring effective state intervention. The challenge lies in ensuring that preventive powers are exercised within clear constitutional limits.
Legal commentators have pointed to historical parallels with earlier preventive laws enacted during the colonial period and later retained in modified form after independence. While the proposed legislation repeals the Restriction of Habitual Offenders (Punjab) Act, 1918, and the Punjab Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959, it also introduces broader administrative powers supported by modern surveillance technologies. In all these legislations, powers were provided to district administration (Assistant Commissioners/Deputy Commissioners/ Police head etc) to decide who is law breaker. In this Bill even shouting against police in a protect can clap an individual as a —habitual criminal. Supporters argue that today’s criminal networks operate far more efficiently than those of previous decades and that traditional policing methods are often inadequate. They contend that preventive interventions, intelligence-led coordination, and technological monitoring are indispensable for protecting society.
Critics, however, question whether some of the proposed measures could blur the distinction between suspicion and guilt. Preventive restrictions, surveillance, electronic monitoring, recommendations for passport restrictions, freezing of bank accounts, suspension of travel document or placement on watch lists before conviction inevitably raise questions regarding due process and judicial oversight. While the bill provides avenues of appeal and judicial review, the extent to which executive authorities may act before final judicial determination remains a subject of legitimate debate. These concerns should not be dismissed as opposition to law enforcement. Rather, they reflect a broader constitutional principle: exceptional powers require exceptional safeguards. A blanket administrative style may improve consistency but can also ignore legitimate exceptions and create unfair outcomes and providing such powers to civil administration can make this class more unanswerable to public because questioning any bureaucrat for any act also falls under this Bill as a crime in term of explanation of this Bill.
The Constitution of Pakistan provides guarantees relating to equality before the law, protection of property, liberty, and fair legal process. Security legislation should reinforce—not weaken—public confidence that these guarantees remain meaningful even when confronting serious crime.
The international dimension also merits attention. Pakistan seeks greater foreign investment, expanded economic cooperation, and stronger diplomatic partnerships. International investors and democratic partners often evaluate not only economic indicators but also the predictability of legal institutions and respect for the rule of law. Laws perceived as granting broad discretionary authority to executive institutions may invite questions regarding governance standards, regardless of the government’s intentions.
Similarly, Pakistan’s critics frequently scrutinize domestic legislation through the lens of civil liberties and human rights. Whether such criticism is fair or not, it is a reality of contemporary international discourse. This makes careful legislative drafting all the more important. Ambiguous provisions can overshadow genuine efforts to strengthen security and may divert attention from Pakistan’s broader diplomatic achievements. The answer, however, is not to abandon necessary reforms rather, it is to improve them.
The debate surrounding these two bills should therefore not become a contest between security and liberty. A stable constitutional order requires both. Effective governments do not choose between public safety and fundamental rights—they strive to secure each without compromising the other.
In a way, the Federal government moved Telecommunication Bill that only favoured private telecommunication companies reminds the term “Banana Republic” that was coined by the American Writer O. Henry in the early 1900s to describe countries in Central America where foreign fruit companies had enormous political and economic influence and they could make any law that could benefit foreign companies against public of the countries. Today, the phrase is often used more broadly to describe governments perceived under the control of ruling elites, powerful economic groups such as telecommunication companies, IPPs, oil companies and ruling families.
