Criminalisation of dissent

EDITORIAL: At its recent meeting the Senate subcommittee on Information and Broadcasting was informed that a total of 13 FIRs had been registered against journalists under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, (PECA) 2025 of which 11 were cancelled after initial investigation. The PECA amendments were already controversial as they made “false and fake information” cognisable and non-bailable offences.

This change fundamentally affected freedom of expression and expanded the scope for arbitrary state intervention. Under democratic norms, restrictions on speech must be narrowly defined and carefully applied. Instead, the amended law grants sweeping powers to a new regulatory authority and an investigation agency that can trigger arrest and prosecution on vague accusations often shaped by political considerations rather than objective legal standards.

The cancellation of 11 FIRs after preliminary scrutiny suggests that many complaints lacked substance from the outset. Yet the damage caused by registration of a criminal case does not disappear simply because an FIR is later withdrawn. Once the machinery of criminal justice is activated, the accused is compelled to undergo a humiliating and coercive process involving legal expenses, reputational harm, professional pressure, and psychological distress. For journalists, the effect is particularly chilling. The threat of arrest or prolonged litigation can discourage critical reporting and investigative work even when no conviction follows. The process itself thus becomes a form of punishment, creating a climate of fear and self-censorship within the media community.

Equally troubling is the apparent absence of accountability for those who initiated false or malicious complaints. If PECA criminalises dissemination of “false and fake information,” then those weaponising the law through fabricated or frivolous accusations should also face consequences. A law that punishes expression but ignores abuse of process attests to the fact that its real objective is the suppression of political dissent and uncomfortable scrutiny.

The situation also raises serious concerns about institutional overreach. The amended PECA framework has created multiple layers of control through regulatory authorities, complaint councils, tribunals, and a new investigative agency. Critics have repeatedly warned that such parallel structures weaken constitutional safeguards and permit arbitrary decision-making. The fact that police reportedly continued registering cases even though they no longer have jurisdiction in the matter reflects broader confusion and excesses surrounding implementation of the highly controversial PECA law.

Safeguards against malicious complaints, independent oversight of investigations, and stronger protections for due process are essential. But laws aimed at combating disinformation must not become instruments for silencing criticism. The cancellation of 11 FIRs against journalists will not be seen as evidence that the system worked, but as proof that the law is being used as a tool of intimidation and pressure.

No aspiring democracy can flourish where journalists work under constant fear of criminal prosecution for reporting inconvenient facts or expressing dissenting opinions. Freedom of expression is not merely a privilege of the media; it is the public’s right to receive information, question authority, and participate meaningfully in national debate. Weakening that freedom ultimately weakens democratic governance itself.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026