LAHORE – Punjab government is planning to grant executive extensive powers to act against individuals identified through intelligence-based assessments. The bill would allow authorities to freeze bank accounts, confiscate mobile phones and other digital devices, seize property, remove online accounts, and place individuals under electronic surveillance.
Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, 2026 is the proposed law that awaits approval by provincial legislature. PML-N lawmaker Khalid Mahmood Ranjha, a retired District and Sessions Judge from Mandi Bahauddin, proposed it. Critics argue that the bill revives principles found in British colonial-era laws, particularly the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871, by expanding administrative powers with limited judicial oversight.
The new bill aims to replace decades-old West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959. According to the Punjab government, the objective is to modernize the legal framework for tackling organized crime, habitual offenders, extortion, gang violence, cybercrime, land grabbing, and other activities that threaten public order.
However, lawyers, opposition parties, and civil liberties advocates argue that the bill goes far beyond crime control and grants unprecedented powers to the executive without adequate judicial safeguards.
The law authorizes District Intelligence Committees to recommend action against people believed to be habitual offenders or involved in anti-social behaviour.
If those recommendations are accepted, authorities could be empowered to freeze bank accounts, seize movable property and attach immovable property, confiscate mobile phones, laptops, and digital data.
It also remove or block social media accounts and other online presence, block or impound CNICs and passports, place individuals on the Provisional National Identification List (PNIL) or other watch lists, conduct electronic surveillance using modern technology, collect biometric information, fingerprints, photographs, handwriting samples, and potentially DNA.
For many readers, the most striking aspect is that several of these measures could be initiated through administrative action rather than after a criminal conviction.
The list also includes broader offences such as using abusive or obscene language in public, creating annoyance in public places, spreading misinformation on social media, animal cruelty, displaying weapons on social media, aerial firing, impersonating public officials and Harassment.
This is one of the most controversial provisions as authorities may declare someone a habitual offender based on “credible evidence” or repeated arrests connected to scheduled offences. Critics argue this means administrative sanctions may be imposed before any court has found the individual guilty.
The proposed law allows authorities to impose several restrictions, including wearing an electronic monitoring device for a specified period, reporting regularly to police, signing surety bonds.
Following movement or activity restrictions imposed by authorities and permanent storage of biometric and identification data in provincial databases.
The first-time convictions under the law could carry prison terms of three to five years, while repeat offenders could face up to seven years’ imprisonment and fines of up to Rs2 million. A major criticism is that the bill resembles laws introduced during British colonial rule.
As Govt supporters believe stronger powers are necessary to tackle organized crime more effectively. Critics, however, argue that the bill expands executive authority while reducing judicial oversight. They fear that actions such as freezing bank accounts, confiscating property, removing online accounts, or placing people under surveillance based primarily on intelligence assessments could affect constitutional protections such as due process, privacy, property rights, and the presumption of innocence.
News Desk
About the Author
