The IHC cybercrime report ordered by the Islamabad High Court will test whether Pakistan’s telecom, media and cybercrime regulators are enforcing the laws against online harassment, blackmail and the unauthorised sharing of private material.
Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir issued the directions in a written interim order on a petition filed by Dr Raana Ahsan against the federation and others, Dawn reported. The court directed the federal government, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) and the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) to submit comprehensive reports on the measures they have taken.
The court also directed the interior secretary to convene a coordination meeting of the relevant institutions, to identify gaps, clarify responsibilities and set out an enforcement mechanism. A joint report, with an implementation timetable, must then go back to the court. The next hearing is on November 23, 2026.
The order said the petition raised substantial questions of public importance, including online safety, misuse of digital and broadcast media, the effectiveness of existing mechanisms and citizens’ fundamental rights.
IHC cybercrime report: what the PTA figures show
The most revealing part of the order is the annexed PTA report. It measures how often platforms carry out PTA requests to block unlawful content, and the results vary sharply by category.
Compliance stood at 40.38 per cent in defamation and impersonation cases, the lowest figure reported. It stood at 59.01 per cent for national security and defence, 79.51 per cent for terrorism-related content, 76.28 per cent for contempt of court, 76.54 per cent for content against the glory of Islam and 98.91 per cent for decency and morality.
By platform, compliance ranged from 48.42 per cent on X to 88.68 per cent on TikTok. Facebook stood at 78.57 per cent, Instagram at 79.52 per cent and YouTube at 87.34 per cent. The court said these figures required a considered explanation of how effective existing mechanisms are.
Reports of the order differ on one further category figure, for sectarian and hate speech, so it is left out here.
Why the platforms keep saying no
The PTA told the court that social media companies had not responded affirmatively to requests to meet registration requirements and appoint local compliance and grievance officers. Those requests followed the notification of the relevant rules in October 2021.
The regulator also cited limited powers and frequent refusals by platforms to remove content. It said its role had in practice narrowed to asking operators for removals or technical measures, and operators often declined, citing their own community guidelines.
The court questioned whether existing statutory powers under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organisation) Act, 1996, and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, were being effectively exercised. It asked the PTA to explain why it had not invoked coercive provisions where platforms failed to comply.
The machinery the law already creates
The order also points to machinery that already exists on paper. The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, provides for a Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority, covering online safety, users’ rights, platform regulation and the blocking of unlawful content. It also provides for binding directions to platforms, a Social Media Protection Tribunal and a Social Media Complaint Council.
The court’s question is therefore practical. It is not asking parliament for new powers. It is asking the institutions that hold existing powers to show, in writing, what they have done with them, what stopped them where they failed, and what they will do next.
What happens next
Each respondent must file a report covering online safety, unlawful content removal, protection of children and other vulnerable users, prevention of harassment and blackmail, and complaint redress. The reports must be supported by relevant documents.
The court made clear that nothing in the order requires any authority to act beyond its mandate or disregard procedural safeguards. The directions aim to make statutory remedies practically available, not to expand them.
Feature Pakistan has previously reported on efforts to strengthen the NCCIA’s cybercrime work in Punjab.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Islamabad High Court order?
The court ordered the federal government, the PTA, Pemra and the NCCIA to report on how laws against online harassment, blackmail and unauthorised sharing of private material are enforced.
When is the next hearing?
The matter has been fixed for further hearing on November 23, 2026, when the court will consider the reports and the joint implementation timetable.
