Islamabad: Pakistan’s Punjab government is facing mounting criticism over a proposed law. Opponents say it grants sweeping powers to the executive and undermines judicial oversight, Dawn reported.
According to Dawn, the Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, 2026, has been referred to the Punjab Assembly Standing Committee on Law. This referral happened after it was introduced in the provincial legislature.
The proposed legislation would empower executive authorities to freeze bank accounts, seize property, confiscate electronic devices, remove online content, place individuals under electronic surveillance, and restrict travel. These actions would be based primarily on the assessment of an intelligence committee. Importantly, Dawn reported that this assessment would take priority over a court conviction.
The bill has drawn strong criticism from opposition lawmakers as well as activists, lawyers, journalists, and members of civil society. Dawn reported this opposition.
Former Citigroup emerging markets investments head and political economy author Yousuf Nazar described the legislation as “one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation proposed in Pakistan in recent years.”
In a post on X, Nazar argued that the bill would allow executive committees dominated by police and intelligence officials to declare citizens “habitual offenders” or “anti-social.” Moreover, these committees could impose severe sanctions. They could do so without first securing a criminal conviction.
He warned that authorities could freeze bank accounts, attach property, seize electronic devices, impose surveillance, restrict travel documents, and target social media accounts. Significantly, they could do so without proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Nazar further argued that the bill’s broad definition of “anti-social behaviour” extends beyond organised crime and drug offences. It also includes vaguely defined acts such as spreading “misinformation,” using abusive language in public, and causing annoyance.
He also expressed concern that the executive could expand these categories through subordinate legislation. As a result, sanctions could be imposed based on intelligence reports, police records, or repeated arrests. This could occur even when no court has found an individual guilty.
Calling the proposal a departure from the rule of law, Nazar alleged that it effectively places excessive discretionary powers in the hands of executive authorities. Moreover, Dawn reported this allegation.
