A heated debate has begun in legal,
constitutional and human rights circles after a proposed bill called “The
Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2026” was presented
in the Punjab Assembly. Critics say that if the bill becomes a law in its
current form, its impact on civil liberties, fundamental rights and the
judicial system in the province could be far-reaching.
According to the proposed bill, a broad
definition of “anti-social behaviour” has been given, which includes about 30
different human acts, activities and attitudes. Critics are particularly
focused on the clause under which the relevant government authorities will be
empowered to include more acts in this definition, which is raising concerns
about possible misuse of powers.
According to Section 7 of the bill, action
against a citizen can be initiated on a complaint by the police or other government
officials, while ordinary citizens can also submit an application. After
receiving the complaint, a committee comprising government officials will hear
the concerned individual and if he is found guilty of “anti-social behaviour”,
several sanctions may be imposed.
These sanctions include the condition of
submitting a surety bond, inclusion of name in the PNIL list, ban on air
travel, blocking or confiscating passports and identity cards, closing social
media accounts, confiscating mobile phones, laptops and computers, cancelling
arms licenses, recommending freezing of bank accounts and freezing of property.
According to the bill, in some cases, electronic tracking devices can also be
used to monitor a citizen.
Section 9 of the bill also introduces the
definition of “habitual offender”. According to it, a person can also be
declared a habitual offender against whom a case has been registered and a
challan has been submitted, or who has been arrested twice in different cases,
or has been repeatedly found involved in certain specific crimes. The
magistrate will be able to declare such individuals’ habitual offenders after a
summary trial and conditions of electronic monitoring can be imposed on them.
The bill also proposes to store DNA,
fingerprints and photographic records of habitual offenders. Penalties of
imprisonment and heavy fines have also been proposed for those who violate the
conditions of electronic monitoring.
Legal experts and human rights activists are
expressing strong reservations about the proposed law. Critics argue that the
bill may conflict with several fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution
of Pakistan, including freedom of movement, freedom of expression, a fair trial, freedom of business, the right to participate in political activities, property rights, and constitutional guarantees of personal liberty.
Some legal circles say that the bill is granting the administration powers traditionally considered within the judiciary's jurisdiction. On this basis, questions are also being raised regarding the principle of separation of judiciary and executive under Article 175(3) of the Constitution.
On the other hand, the government and the
pro-bill circles may argue that effective legal measures are needed to curb
criminal elements, habitual offenders and social unrest in the province, but a
final opinion in this regard will be able to emerge only after the debate of
the legislative bodies, the judiciary and constitutional experts.
The proposed bill will now undergo further
deliberation, debate and possible amendments in the assembly. However, as soon
as it is presented, it has become clear that the question of the balance
between civil liberties and state powers could become a major topic of legal
and political debate in Pakistan in the coming days.
Post a Comment