ISLAMABAD: Another petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the amendments to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) 2016, seeking to de clare them unconstitutional for being ultra vires to the Constitution and against the fundamental rights and basic norms of civil and criminal laws.

The public interest petition was moved through Advocate Dr G.M.

Chaudhry. This is the second petition filed before the Supreme Court.

Earlier, a citizen from Ghizer district in Gilgit-Baltistan had filed a similar plea seeking a court declaration that the recent amendments to Peca was against the Constitution, beyond the power of the legislature and extremely repugnant to the humanrights, fundamental rights and freedom of expression and speech.

The fresh petition argued that the Peca provisions were in violation of Articles 8, 9, 10, 10A, 14, 18, 19, 19A and 25, as well as the preamble and Articles 2A, 3, 4 and 5, read with Articles 37 and 38 of the Constitution, and thus liable to be struck down and be declared void ab initio being inconsistent with and in derogation of the Constitution.

The petition argued that the act was an attempt to distort and destroy the existing juristic foundations of jurisprudence in civil and criminal administration of justice in Pakistan by criminalising civil rights.

The petition questioned whether Peca interfered with the private and civil rights of citizens, particularly their freedom of speech and right to information, and whether the actviolated the principles of afair trial and due process of law.

The plea argued that the act was highly discriminatory, seeking to create divisions in Pakistani society based on the `haves and have-nots` and promoting the principle of `might is right` rather than equality, the rule of law, and an exploitation-free society founded on good governance, justice and fair play.

It said Peca is an attempt to stifle impact by restricting the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19 and the right to information under Article 19A of the Constitution. The act aims to hinder intellectual interactions by imposing undue restrictions on the thinking process, the expression ofintellectualideas,fair criticism, and free speech, ultimately suppressing saner voices in society and pushing it towards intel-lectual stagnation and barrenness.

The petitioner questioned whether the actions of executive functionaries could be kept outside the purview of judicial scrutiny for their tortious acts when legislation was required under Article 212(1) (b) of the Constitution, as stipulated in Section 2P of Peca.

`Thus the constitutional guarantee of exploitation-free society based on equality or rule of law will vanish,` the petition feared, adding that the provisions of the act will curtail the effective enforcement of the fundamental rights, making the concepts of `elimination of exploitation`, `rule of law` and `due process of law and procedure` merely a fallacy.

The cumulative effect of the act will undermine the constitutional order, equality and rule of law and procedure, the petition said.