Copyright protected content copied from PhoneWorld website.
A person whose private photos are circulated online, or who is threatened with exposure, usually has one question: who will get this taken down? The IHC online harassment order puts that question to the state itself.
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has directed government authorities to ensure that laws against online harassment and blackmail are implemented. It has also ordered that laws against the misuse of digital media be enforced in full.
Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir issued the written order as a single-member bench. The petition before him raised questions about online safety, the prevention and redress of media misuse, and whether the statutory framework is being applied effectively.
What the court has asked for
The court told the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) and the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) to submit a detailed report. It should cover how the relevant laws and mechanisms are being implemented.
The Ministry of Information Technology, along with the same three bodies and other relevant departments, must also hold a meeting. Its purpose is to identify legal, administrative and technical obstacles to enforcement.
They must then explain what steps have been taken, or are proposed, to remove those obstacles. They also have to identify where the institutions need to coordinate better.
A further direction covers measures to prevent online harassment, blackmail and the unauthorised circulation of private material.
The question behind the order
One line in the order deserves attention. The court asked whether the legal powers given to the competent authorities under the relevant laws and rules are actually being exercised.
That is a different question from whether the laws are adequate. It treats enforcement, not drafting, as the point of doubt.
What the PTA’s own figures show
The PTA’s written report was made part of the order. It gives success rates for blocking unlawful content, and they vary widely.
| Content category | Requests acted upon |
|---|---|
| Decency and morality | 98.91% |
| Terrorism-related | 79.51% |
| Against the sanctity of Islam | 76.54% |
| Sectarian and hate-related | 64.43% |
| Defence and security | 59.1% |
| Platform | Content-blocking rate |
|---|---|
| TikTok | 88.68% |
| YouTube | 87.34% |
| 79.52% | |
| 78.57% | |
| X | 48.42% |
The platform gap is large. TikTok complies with PTA requests at a rate about 40 percentage points higher than X.
A user’s chance of getting harmful content removed therefore depends heavily on where it was posted. The report does not explain the differences, and the order does not either. That leaves the inter-agency meeting to work out whether the cause is platform policy, how requests are framed, or the PTA’s leverage over each company.
Local officers, no answer
The PTA also told the court that social media companies had been asked to meet registration requirements and appoint local officers to handle complaints. It said it received no positive response to the proposal on local representatives.
According to the PTA, platforms frequently reject removal requests.
For a complainant in Pakistan, the absence of a local officer means there is no domestic point of contact. Complaints go through a regulator to a company that may not answer.
Three bodies named in the order have separate roles. The PTA blocks content, Pemra regulates broadcast media, and the NCCIA investigates cybercrime. Online harassment cuts across all three, and a victim often has to approach more than one.
The court’s instruction to identify areas needing coordination suggests it sees that fragmentation as a possible cause of weak enforcement. The order does not say so directly.
Bottom Line
The most useful part of this order may be the data it placed on record. Blocking rates are an input measure. They show how often a request succeeded, not how long it took, how many requests were filed, or whether the content reappeared.
The reports due from the PTA, Pemra and NCCIA will show whether the authorities can answer those questions. If they cannot, that is a finding in itself.
For harassment victims in Pakistan, the number that matters is the time between a complaint and a takedown. No figure on that has been published in this case. The court has now asked the agencies to say what is slowing enforcement, and the answer will indicate whether the next step is legal reform or simply better coordination of laws already in force.
The post IHC Orders PTA, Pemra and NCCIA to Explain How They Are Enforcing Online Harassment Laws appeared first on PhoneWorld.