July 9, 2025
By Rehan Piracha
LAHORE
After YouTube removed 27 channels operated by Pakistani journalists on the direction of Islamabad High Court, journalists have vowed to challenge the court order.
The ban was imposed on anchors, and media activists, who were mostly associated with the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, following the IHC order directing the platform to block them for allegedly airing ‘anti-state content’ and spreading ‘false, misleading, and fake information.’
The removed channels include those of PTI supporters as well as independent journalists. Some of the names include Matiullah Jan, Wajahat Saeed Khan, Ahmad Noorani, and Asad Ali Toor, as well as former TV anchors Imran Riaz, Orya Maqbool Jan, Sabir Shakir, and Moeed Pirzada. The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) submitted the request for their removal.
According to a court order issued on June 24, Judicial Magistrate Muhammad Abbas Shah stated that an inquiry officer from the Cyber Crime Police Station in Islamabad had approached the court under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allows investigators to obtain documents or evidence from individuals in possession of such materials. The officer sought a warrant or subpoena directing Google to block the 27 YouTube channels. The court order listed the names and URLs of the channels.
The inquiry officer told the court that the department was investigating the channels under Section 37 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, which relates to unlawful online content. The officer alleged the channels were “involved in disseminating and propagating fake and misleading information against state institutions, likely to cause fear, panic, disorder or unrest in the general public or society,” as well as spreading defamatory content and violating the privacy and dignity of officials.
He further stated that the channels were “found involved in sharing highly intimidating, provocative and derogatory content” and that the individuals behind them had “attempted to provoke the general public and armed forces personnel by trying to create a feeling of ill-will among pillars of the state.”
In his written order, Magistrate Shah said he had heard the inquiry officer and reviewed the case record. “In light of the facts explained and evidence presented, the court is convinced that the subject matter constitutes offences punishable under PECA and the penal laws of Pakistan,” the order said. The judge then directed the “head officer in charge of the security department/custodian of records” at Google to remove or block the listed channels.
Journalists to challenge order
Speaking to Voicepk, journalist Habib Akram said he had spoken with fellow journalists and activists whose channels were removed, and they had decided to jointly challenge the court order.
“We’ve decided to act collectively, as this concerns the fundamental right to freedom of expression and the censorship imposed by the current government,” he said.
Akram said that he had not been contacted by the inquiry officer or informed of any specific content that allegedly violated the law.
“The NCCIA never approached me, and I received no summons from the Islamabad court,” he said. He added that he had been out of the city and had not even checked mail from Google/YouTube. According to Akram, the court order did not specify any charges that justified the removal of the channels.
He also expressed concern that the court issued a unilateral order without giving affected individuals an opportunity to be heard. “This implies that the courts are under pressure to target voices critical of the government,” Akram said, adding that journalists in Pakistan were working within the law and would continue to do so.
‘No protection for journalists’
In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Matiullah Jan wrote: “If channels start closing at the behest of governments, then this is no protection—and it will seriously affect YouTube’s reputation.”
PTI spokesperson Sheikh Waqas Akram also criticized the move, saying the court had acted solely on the government’s position without notifying or hearing from the affected content creators. “No charges were heard against them, nor were they given a chance to explain. Section 94 of the CrPC has been misused to stifle free speech,” he said, calling the move a violation of constitutional and moral principles.
Decision widely condemned
Human rights and media organisations have strongly condemned the takedown of the YouTube channels.
In a statement, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) said it was “greatly concerned” by the court’s directive. “The wholesale blocking of entire channels—rather than addressing specific instances of unlawful or hateful speech in accordance with due process—conflates dissent with criminal activity,” the statement read.
HRCP emphasized that freedom of expression is not only a constitutional right but also essential for government accountability, public debate, and access to diverse viewpoints. “Any interventions targeting hate speech must be precise and proportionate,” it added.
In a separate statement, the Supreme Court Press Association condemned what it described as a “unilateral and secretive inquiry” by the NCCIA, leading to a decision that amounted to “economic murder of journalists” without providing them the right to a hearing. The Association urged the Chief Justice of Pakistan to take notice.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) also called the court order a blatant violation of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. “The order disregards the principle of natural justice, journalistic ethics, and the very concept of freedom of speech. It represents yet another alarming example of how dissenting voices are being suppressed,” the SCBA stated.
The SCBA added that the Judicial Magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction, especially in light of the PECA (Amendment) Act, which prescribes specific forums for adjudicating such matters. “While the SCBA has previously opposed PECA, the grounds cited in the court order fall squarely under its framework—making the order ultra vires and legally ineffective,” the statement read.
It also criticized the court for denying the affected individuals the right to be heard. “The Magistrate appears to have based his decision solely on evidence presented by the NCCIA, without affording the channel-owners any opportunity of hearing. Such denial of audi alteram partem is a grave breach of due process,” the statement said.
However, the SCBA also acknowledged that no individual, whether journalist, YouTuber, political actor, or citizen, should misuse social media platforms to spread falsehoods that harm national interests or undermine the dignity of institutions and individuals. “Freedom of speech and expression has limits, and actions beyond those limits are unacceptable and must be firmly rejected,” it stated.
In conclusion, the SCBA reaffirmed that freedom of speech and expression are fundamental constitutional rights. “These rights must not be subjected to arbitrary decisions. They form the foundation of a strong and vibrant democracy—one in which the courts, too, must uphold and respect these essential freedoms.”
On Wednesday, a statement by the Forum for Digital Rights and Democracy (FDRD) also called for the government to immediately reverse the decision of banning the channels and cease the harassment of journalists in all forms.
“We also call on civil society, media houses, international human rights bodies, and platforms like YouTube to push back against these undemocratic practices and defend the digital rights of Pakistan’s citizens,” said Aftab Alam, the convener.
“Regardless of our disagreements with many digital journalists, this is a one-sided action without giving them due opportunity of being heard – a fundamental requirement of fair trial under article 10-A of the Constitution. Moreover, under the Constitution, it is the sole jurisdiction of higher judiciary (High courts and the Supreme Court/ Constitutional court) to decide whether content is against the restrictions under Article 19 of the Constitution, and not of a magistrate level court.”
He said that the bans appear to be part of a broader pattern of digital repression that includes internet shutdowns, cybercrime investigations against reporters, surveillance of online activities, and intimidation of dissenting voices through vague and sweeping laws such as the recent Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) Amendment Act, 2025.