June 30, 2026
By Rehan Piracha
LAHORE
The Speaker of the Punjab Assembly informed the House that Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz has halted the Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Bill 2026 and has assured that it will be reconsidered. He directed the Assembly Secretariat to formally send the bill back to the provincial government.
Addressing the House on Tuesday, Speaker Malik Ahmed Khan said that before taking up the day’s agenda, he wanted to inform the Secretariat that the bill — about which MPA Rana Aftab had earlier written a letter to the Speaker’s office — was being returned to the government on the Chief Minister’s instructions. He noted that in recent times the United Kingdom and Australia had passed legislation targeting anti-social behaviour, including laws restricting internet and social media access for children under the age of 16.
He added that similar concerns around anti-social conduct, some carrying criminal dimensions, had also surfaced in Pakistan, and that such matters were previously addressed under older laws like the “Goonda Act.”
The Speaker said that once the bill came before the Assembly, it drew strong reaction from civil society and on social media. Following this backlash, the government decided to reconsider the legislation in its entirety on the Chief Minister’s directive. He pointed out that the bill had already completed two readings — one when it was laid before the House and another when the Standing Committee’s report was presented — with only the final reading remaining. He instructed the Assembly Secretariat to send the bill back to the Cabinet so it could be reconsidered and brought forward again at an appropriate forum, as directed by the Chief Minister.
According to sources, Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz has ordered that every clause of the bill be reviewed individually, and that all stakeholders be consulted on how the bill defines “anti-social behaviour” and “habitual offenders.” The bill had reportedly been framed with the stated aim of ensuring justice in society and protecting marginalised groups from exploitation, though it had not yet cleared its final reading in the Assembly.
A bill that sparked controversy
The bill’s path through the Assembly was contentious well before its withdrawal. Monday’s session in fact saw a heated exchange over the legislation, with the opposition arguing it threatened constitutional rights and free expression, even as the Speaker sought to reassure lawmakers their objections would be addressed before further proceedings.
Opposition Leader Moin Riaz Qureshi had opened the debate by alleging the bill breached constitutional and democratic principles, warning it risked dealing a serious blow to free expression and amounted to an attempt to stifle dissent through legislation. He further argued the ruling PML-N had a history of accountability laws that later backfired on its own leadership.
The Speaker, responding to these concerns, had explained that he was not presiding over the House when the bill was first introduced or when the relevant committee’s report was tabled, and that he only learned of it after it had already gone to committee. He said the government had not yet scheduled the bill for the Assembly’s agenda, and that Parliamentary Affairs Minister Mujtaba Shujaur Rehman would respond to members once it did come up.
It was in this context that Rana Aftab Ahmad’s letter to the Speaker became significant. The MPA had read its contents in the House, asking that the bill not be passed in its existing form and instead be sent for detailed constitutional and legal review, arguing it endangered citizens’ fundamental freedoms, clashed with constitutional protections for free speech, and tilted the balance of power toward the executive at the expense of judicial oversight. The opposition had pressed for full parliamentary debate and independent legal scrutiny before any final approval.
The controversy had actually first surfaced a day earlier, when opposition members raised the issue and the Speaker admitted he had been unaware the bill had already been introduced and referred to committee, where it was passed shortly afterward.
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) had also voiced alarm over the bill, warning that it granted the executive sweeping powers to impose intrusive restrictions without sufficient judicial checks or due process. The commission argued that measures touching on surveillance, movement, property, and speech needed to satisfy constitutional tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality rather than resemble outdated colonial-era laws, and said it intended to consult various stakeholders, including lawmakers, on the bill’s shortcomings.