January 17, 2026
By Iqra Manzoor
LAHORE
Pakistan’s cybercrime authorities have intensified action against what they describe as coordinated social media campaigns targeting members of the judiciary, as the Lahore High Court (LHC) examines the constitutional boundaries between legitimate criticism and contempt of court.
The case, initiated through a constitutional petition, has not only led to arrests and investigations but has also triggered a wider debate on whether criminal proceedings can curb online abuse without chilling freedom of expression.
Why the petitioner approached the court
The matter came before Justice Ali Zia Bajwa on a petition filed by advocate Chaudhry Pervez Elahi Bhaddar, challenging what was described as a sustained social media campaign against female judges of the Lahore High Court.
Explaining the rationale behind moving the court, Mian Dawood, Advocate High Court and counsel for the petitioner, said the constitutional petition was filed in public interest after a coordinated campaign was launched against Chief Justice Aalia Neelum following the suspension of certain provisions of the Punjab Protection of Immovable Property Act.
According to Dawood, from December 22 onwards, members of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and affiliated social media teams, allegedly acting at the behest of the Punjab chief minister, began targeting the chief justice personally.
“Using the performance of the judiciary as a pretext, a campaign was initiated not only against the chief justice but against the entire judiciary,” Dawood said, adding that government officials, including spokespersons, ministers and the Punjab government’s social media team, were involved in personal attacks on female judges.
He said the campaign continued for nearly two weeks before escalating into a second wave, in which material related to the private lives of Chief Justice Aalia Neelum and Justice Abhar Gul was circulated on social media under the guise of a complaint filed before the Supreme Judicial Council.
“This amounted to character assassination and included abusive language, with the government’s social media team also playing a role in amplifying it,” Dawood maintained.
He argued that the campaign violated Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, Section 37 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), as well as relevant provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, prompting the filing of the petition “in the larger public interest.”
NCCIA reports arrests, investigation ongoing
Appearing before the court, NCCIA Director General Syed Khurram Ali submitted a detailed report stating that multiple individuals had already been arrested in connection with the alleged online campaign. He informed the bench that additional suspects had been identified and further investigations were underway.
“The agency is making all possible efforts to identify and apprehend those involved in attempts to malign the judiciary,” the NCCIA chief told the court, assuring that the matter was being pursued with urgency.
According to the report, FIRs were registered in several cities of Punjab, leading to arrests and the identification of numerous social media accounts allegedly involved in sharing defamatory content.
Do arrests risk chilling free speech?
The arrests have raised concerns among legal observers about the potential impact on freedom of expression, particularly at a time when social media has become a primary platform for political debate and criticism.
Responding to these concerns, Dawood rejected the notion that the proceedings would curb free speech.
“These cases will not affect freedom of expression in any way,” he said. “Freedom of expression does not mean levelling false allegations against the personal character of a female judge.”
He added that constitutional protection applies to criticism of laws and judgments, not personal abuse. “Freedom of expression means saying that a particular law is flawed or that a particular judgment is incorrect — not attacking a judge’s personal life.”
PTA’s role questioned during proceedings
During the hearing, the court also questioned the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority’s (PTA) response to the spread of objectionable content. The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that despite existing regulatory powers, no meaningful action had been taken to block accounts or platforms involved.
“Can the PTA not take action on its own?” Justice Bajwa observed, while directi ng the authority to block accounts identified by the NCCIA and trace the sources of uploaded material, including content originating from outside Pakistan.
Who decides fair criticism and contempt?
A key issue highlighted during the proceedings was the distinction between fair criticism and contempt of court — a determination that often remains contested in democratic societies.
In his written order, Justice Bajwa clarified that judges and judicial decisions are open to academic, professional and public scrutiny, provided such criticism is made in good faith, expressed in temperate language and confined to legal reasoning.
However, criticism that imputes bias, dishonesty or improper motives to judges, or seeks to undermine public confidence in the justice system, falls outside constitutional protection and may attract legal consequences.
Addressing this question, Dawood said the issue was already well-settled under the Constitution and judicial precedent.
“Article 19 guarantees freedom of expression, but it is subject to the law,” he said. “The legal framework is already defined under the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act.”
He added that superior courts have consistently upheld the right to criticise judicial decisions, but not personal attacks. “Abusing a judge, using derogatory language or making allegations about a judge’s personal character is a criminal offence,” Dawood said.
“This is not something that needs to be decided afresh. These principles are already settled in law and in judgments of the superior judiciary, and they cannot be violated.”
Court calls for proportionate enforcement
Justice Bajwa directed law enforcement agencies to take action strictly in accordance with the law, stressing that enforcement should remain corrective rather than punitive.
“Such action must not be vindictive or retaliatory,” the court observed, warning that legitimate freedom of expression must not be chilled in the process.
The court emphasised that the objective was not to silence fair criticism but to preserve the dignity and independence of the judiciary through lawful and proportionate measures.
A broader debate
The case has reopened debate over the use of cybercrime laws to regulate online speech in Pakistan, particularly as courts increasingly grapple with social media-driven criticism of state institutions. Observers say the outcome may influence how future cases balance institutional integrity with constitutional freedoms.