LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Thursday sought replies from the federal government and information technology ministry on a petition challenging several provisions of Cybercrime Act/ Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016.

Social Worker Zubair Niazi filed the petition pleading that the impugned law had been passed without prior approval of the federal cabinet as declared mandatory in a recent Supreme Court judgment.

The petitioner said the law was in violation of fundamental rights, freedom of expression protected in Article 19-A of the Constitution.

He further said the law had given unfettered and sweeping powers to the government to block internet content and to prosecute anyone who wanted to freely express his or her views.

The petitioner apprehended that the government would misuse the law under the garb of security and defence to victimise its opponents.

He asked the court to declare sections 10, 19 and 32 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 unconstitutional.

Justice Ayesha A. Malik directed the respondent authorities to submit the replies within a fortnight.APPOINTMENT: The Lahore High Court on Thursday set aside appointment of Sahibzada Imran Shami as director general of plant protection department and directed the principal secretary to the prime minister to make new appointment strictly on merit.

Earlier, a deputy attorney general undertook before the court that new appointment would be made on merit.

Justice Farrukh Irfan Khan directed the law officer to ensure the new appointment by Jan 19, 2017.

Advocate Sheraz Zaka had challenged the appointment of Mr Shami saying the impugned appointment was made in violation of law and without prime minister`s approval.

The petitioner-lawyer further stated the respondent director general was not a master`s degree holder in the subject of agriculture, the requisite qualification for the post. The respondent had a master`s degree in business administration (finance), he said.

The lawyer pointed out that departmental inquiries were also pending involving Mr Shami before his appointment as director general.

He asked the court to set aside the impugned appointment for being made in violation of rules and based on nepotism.