Punjab Anti-Social Behaviour Bill Sparks Free Speech Alarm

The Punjab Assembly in Lahore became the centre of a major political and civil liberties debate after opposition lawmakers strongly challenged the proposed Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, 2026. The controversy intensified during Monday’s session as legislators warned that the draft law could weaken constitutional protections and place broad coercive powers in the hands of the executive.

Opposition Leader Moin Riaz Qureshi led the criticism in the house, arguing that the bill went far beyond routine law-and-order regulation. He said the legislation risked being used to silence dissent and restrict expression under the cover of controlling habitual offenders and anti-social conduct, turning the proposed law into a flashpoint for wider concerns over governance and civil rights in Punjab.

The proposed law includes provisions for monitoring people through electronic tracking devices such as anklets or bracelets. It also creates provincial, divisional and district-level intelligence committees tasked with identifying and acting against a wide range of activities, including public nuisance, cyber-bullying, online disinformation, gambling dens, illicit liquor operations, online blackmail and the display of weapons on social media.

Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan responded to the opposition’s objections by saying the bill had not yet been placed on the assembly’s agenda for final consideration. He told lawmakers that he was not presiding when the bill was first introduced or when the relevant committee report was moved, and assured the house that concerns would be heard before the matter was taken forward.

Opposition member Rana Aftab Ahmad also pressed for the bill to be stopped in its current form. In a letter read out in the assembly, he urged the speaker to send the legislation for detailed constitutional and legal review, arguing that it could expand administrative power while reducing judicial oversight and due process for citizens.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan separately expressed concern over the draft law, warning that intrusive restrictions on movement, property, speech and personal liberty must meet strict constitutional standards. Rights advocates fear that the bill’s administrative mechanisms could be misused if safeguards are not clearly defined and if independent judicial review is not built into the process.

The controversy has grown because the bill empowers district intelligence committees to recommend actions such as surety bonds, blocking identity cards and passports, freezing bank accounts and removing digital profiles. Supporters of stronger enforcement may view these tools as necessary for public order, but critics say such powers could become punitive without transparent criteria and legal protections.

For Punjab, the debate carries significance beyond one piece of legislation. It raises questions about how Pakistan’s largest province balances crime control, digital regulation, protection of minorities, public safety and fundamental freedoms at a time when online expression and political dissent are already sensitive issues.

The next step will depend on whether the provincial government revises the bill, sends it for broader scrutiny or pushes ahead with the current draft. With the opposition, civil society and rights bodies now openly challenging the proposal, the assembly’s handling of the legislation is likely to remain a major political and legal test in the days ahead.