June 29, 2026
Ahmed Saeed
ISLAMABAD
A controversial piece of legislation that is expected to grant the executive sweeping powers to freeze bank accounts, seize property, confiscate phones and erase a person’s online presence, has been quietly passed through the Punjab Assembly’s standing committee, with the Speaker later saying he was unaware that it had even been introduced in the House.
The Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, 2026, surfaced during a Punjab Assembly session on Sunday, June 28, convened to discuss the supplementary budget, when PTI MPA Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan raised the matter on the floor. Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan appeared visibly surprised.
“Has it been laid?” he asked in response.
The bill had in fact been introduced in the House on June 8 during the Speaker’s absence. He later said the assembly secretariat would face strict action, saying he had been kept in the dark.
Speaker questions the bill
The Speaker’s response became one of the most striking moments of Sunday’s session.
Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan said he had not been informed when the bill was presented before the House and expressed serious reservations. He said he would study the proposed law before deciding the next course of action, adding that Punjab could not be taken back to the colonial era through legislation.
He questioned whether district commissioners and district police officers would be empowered to take action against individuals on their own authority. He also noted that even under the existing Goonda Act, courts retain the power to sentence individuals after intelligence agencies identify them, suggesting that the proposed bill removes an important judicial safeguard.
Voicepk reached out to the Speaker for comment but he was unavailable.
What the bill proposes
The bill was introduced by PML-N MPA and Parliamentary Secretary for Law and Parliamentary Affairs Khalid Mahmood Ranjha.
According to its statement of objects and reasons, the Home Department seeks to create a legal framework to control habitual offenders and anti-social behaviour that affects the writ of the state, causes public nuisance and exposes society to criminal activity in Punjab.
The bill proposes a procedure to monitor anti-social behaviour, including the execution of surety bonds scrutinised by assistant commissioners and electronic monitoring of habitual offenders through tracking devices.
It also seeks to establish three tiers of intelligence committees at the provincial, divisional and district levels.
Under the proposed law, District Intelligence Committees would be empowered to inquire into an individual’s conduct and recommend measures including freezing bank accounts, blocking CNICs and passports, confiscating electronic devices and removing an individual’s online presence.
The bill identifies 23 categories of anti-social behaviour.
Apart from organised crime and drug trafficking, it includes offences such as using abusive language in public, annoying people in public places, spreading misinformation on social media and cruelty to animals.
It also gives District Intelligence Committees the authority to declare any additional “set of activities” as anti-social behaviour, effectively allowing bureaucrats to expand the law’s scope without returning to the Punjab Assembly.
One of the bill’s most controversial provisions allows action to be taken on the basis of allegations rather than convictions.
A person could be declared a habitual offender and placed under mandatory electronic monitoring based on what the bill describes as “credible evidence” or if they have been arrested more than once in connection with scheduled offences, even if they have never been convicted.
Failure to comply with monitoring requirements could result in imprisonment for up to three years.
The bill also authorises law enforcement agencies to maintain biometric data, fingerprints and DNA records of habitual offenders in a centralised Punjab Habitual Offenders Registry.
The proposed law seeks to repeal the Restriction of Habitual Offenders (Punjab) Act, 1918, and the Punjab Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959, arguing that they should be replaced with a modern legal framework.
Even one of the PML-N government’s coalition partners has expressed reservations.
It also provides an appeals mechanism through higher intelligence committees and ultimately an independent tribunal headed by a retired district and sessions judge.
Political opposition
PPP Parliamentary Leader in the Punjab Assembly Ali Haider Gillani said he was unaware of the bill and added that the Pakistan Peoples Party would strongly oppose it in the assembly.
PTI Information Secretary Sheikh Waqas Akram said the proposed law violated constitutional protections including due process, the presumption of innocence, personal security, freedom of expression and property rights.
He argued that in a system already plagued by delays and police overreach, the bill would allow punitive administrative action on the basis of unproven allegations, creating the risk of political victimisation of opposition leaders, journalists, activists and ordinary citizens.
PTI described the legislation as “a repressive colonial relic and a grave assault on fundamental rights, due process and democratic governance.”
During the assembly session, PTI MPA Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan called the bill a violation of human rights and warned that its consequences would affect future generations.
He also cautioned the ruling PML-N that governments change, and any law enacted today could one day be used against those currently in power.
PTI MPA Ahmer Bhatti said the bill would allow officials to investigate an individual and take action against them without judicial oversight, warning that such powers could easily be used for political victimisation.
Opposition members also expressed concern that the bill could pass because of the government’s overwhelming majority in the House.
Lawyers and civil society raise concerns
Usama Khilji, director of digital rights organisation Bolo Bhi, described the bill as “outrageous” and said it reflected what he called an escalating pattern of draconian measures.
“We’re witnessing the slide down a very slippery slope of draconian measures by the current regime. This must be resisted,” he said.
Lawyer Taimur Malik said on X that the bill had drawn criticism because it significantly expanded executive powers without corresponding legal safeguards.
He argued that vague terms such as “anti-social behaviour” could invite abuse of authority and said measures including digital surveillance, biometric collection, freezing bank accounts and blocking CNICs should only be permitted under clearly defined legal standards, judicial oversight and effective rights of appeal.