HRCP warns against ‘sweeping powers’ in Punjab Bill

The proposed Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Bill 2026 has triggered a political

The proposed Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Bill 2026 has triggered a political and legal debate across the province. Human rights groups, opposition parties and legal experts have expressed serious reservations over several provisions of the proposed legislation.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan voiced concern that the bill grants extensive powers to administrative authorities without ensuring sufficient judicial oversight. According to the commission, the proposed law may allow intrusive measures that directly affect citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms.

The commission warned that restrictions on movement, surveillance measures, interference in financial affairs and limitations on freedom of expression should only be imposed through clear legal procedures and under judicial supervision. It stressed that any legislation affecting constitutional rights must meet the standards of legality, necessity and proportionality.

The issue also sparked heated debate in the Punjab Assembly. Opposition lawmakers strongly objected to the proposed law and questioned its compatibility with constitutional protections. Concerns were also raised over the legislative process through which the bill was introduced.

The speaker of the provincial assembly reportedly expressed concern over procedural matters and questioned how the legislation had moved forward without following established parliamentary rules.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf strongly opposed the proposed legislation and described it as an attempt to revive colonial-style laws under a new framework. The party argued that several clauses of the bill could undermine due process, the presumption of innocence and freedom of expression.

PTI leaders warned that broad administrative powers could be used against political opponents, journalists, activists and ordinary citizens. They argued that punitive action based on allegations rather than convictions could lead to misuse of authority.

According to critics, the proposed legislation allows designated committees to expand the definition of anti-social behaviour without requiring approval through the normal legislative process. Opponents say such powers could create uncertainty and weaken legal safeguards.

The provincial government, however, maintains that the bill is intended to modernise the outdated 1959 law dealing with habitual offenders and anti-social elements. Officials argue that existing laws are insufficient to tackle emerging forms of crime and organised criminal activity.

Under the proposed legislation, individuals convicted for the first time may face imprisonment ranging from three to five years. Repeat offenders could face prison terms of up to seven years along with fines of as much as two million rupees.

The draft law also proposes powers to freeze bank accounts and block national identity cards of individuals classified as habitual offenders or anti-social elements. Law enforcement agencies may also be authorised to collect biometric information and conduct digital monitoring.

The legislation includes provisions targeting aerial firing, display of weapons on social media, impersonation of government officials, extortion, gang activity and harassment. Authorities believe such measures are necessary to curb organised crime and public disorder.

Legal experts supporting the bill argue that stronger enforcement powers are needed to combat modern criminal networks that increasingly operate through digital platforms and social media.

Meanwhile, human rights organisations and opposition parties have called for wider consultations before the bill is approved by the provincial assembly. They have demanded amendments to ensure judicial oversight and stronger protections for civil liberties.

The debate over the proposed law is expected to continue in the coming days as lawmakers, legal experts and civil society groups weigh the balance between public security and the protection of constitutional rights.