Why journalists oppose latest media law
Front Page Report | Feb 5
MOST journalists, and with them members of the civil society, have been up in arms ever since the parliament has approved the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025. This is because they feel the controversial law will be misused and abused in order to further tighten the noose around them; they have already been facing all kinds of problems in fully and truly exposing the nature of the existing dispensation.
The main reasons behind the journalists’ bitter opposition to the new law are:
Establishment of Regulatory Authorities: The amendment proposes the creation of the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority (SMPRA) and the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA). Critics argue that these bodies could centralise control over digital content, potentially leading to censorship and suppression of dissenting voices. The SMPRA, in particular, would have the authority to block or remove content deemed unlawful, raising concerns about the criteria used to define such content.
Criminalisation of ‘False Information’: The amendment introduces penalties of up to three years in prison and fines up to Rs2 million for individuals found guilty of intentionally disseminating “false or fake” information. The lack of a clear definition for “false information” has led to fears that this provision could be misused to target journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens who criticise the government or other state institutions.
Bypassing Judicial Oversight: The proposed law suggests that appeals against decisions made by the SMPRA would go directly to the Supreme Court, effectively bypassing the High Courts. This move is seen by many as diminishing judicial oversight and concentrating power within government-appointed bodies, potentially undermining the checks and balances essential in a democratic system. Impact on Freedom of Expression: Journalists and human rights organisations have expressed concerns that the amendment could be used to suppress freedom of speech. The broad and vague definitions within the law may lead to self-censorship among media professionals and the public, fearing legal repercussions for expressing dissenting opinions or reporting on sensitive issues.
Please find below the full text of the controversial bill:
