By Qamar Bashir
The Punjab government has recently enacted the Punjab Defamation Act 2024, which
boasts a broader scope compared to the existing Defamation Ordinance 2002. This
comprehensive Act significantly impacts writers, analysts, editors, journalists, vloggers,
and both traditional and social media practitioners. While the Act introduces several
noteworthy provisions, it also presents both advantages and disadvantages when
contrasted with the Defamation Ordinance 2002 and internationally accepted norms and
practices.
It has widened the definition of broadcaster compared to Defamation Ordinance 2002 to a
large extent where the Defamation Ordinance 2002 provides a comprehensive definition
of broadcasting, encompassing various forms of communication, but lacks specificity
regarding modern platforms like social media, potentially leading to ambiguity. In
contrast, the Punjab Defamation Act 2024 offers a more updated and specific definition,
explicitly including social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter,
WhatsApp, and TikTok, thereby reflecting contemporary modes of communication and
enhancing clarity.
The Punjab defamation Act 2024 has broadened the definition of defamation compared to
Defamation Ordinance 2002. While both the Defamation Ordinance 2002 and the Punjab
Defamation Act 2024 share similarities with the internationally accepted definition of
defamation, they exhibit some distinct strengths and weaknesses.
The 2002 Ordinance provides a comprehensive but somewhat outdated definition,
lacking specificity regarding modern mediums like social media and potentially leaving
gaps in legal coverage.
On the other hand, the 2024 Act modernizes the definition by explicitly including social
media platforms and addressing specific concerns related to defamation targeting certain
genders and minorities. However, it may suffer from potential overreach and complexity
due to its broad scope and multiple clauses.
The internationally acceptable definition of a journalist is often considered to be someone
who gathers, assesses, creates, and presents news and information to the public.
However, it's worth noting that the definition can vary slightly depending on cultural,
legal, and professional contexts. Ultimately, a journalist serves as a watchdog, informing
the public about events, issues, and developments in society, and upholding principles of
accuracy, fairness, and objectivity.
Interestingly, the Defamation Ordinance does not have a definition of a journalist
whereas Punjab Defamation Act 2024 does. The definition of a journalist outlined in the
Punjab Act 2024 is more specific and legally binding compared to the internationally
accepted definition.
The Punjab Act specifies that a journalist is someone engaged by various media,
including newspapers, magazines, news websites, or social media, and encompasses
freelancers with a substantial track record. This definition includes the evolving role of
social media in news dissemination.
In contrast, the internationally accepted definition emphasizes the core functions and
principles of journalism, such as informing the public about events and upholding
accuracy and fairness. Both definitions acknowledge the importance of journalistic
principles but differ in scope and specificity, with the Punjab Act catering to a legal
framework within Punjab and the international definition providing a broader
understanding across different contexts.
However, both the Defamation Ordinance and Punjab Defamation Act 2024 do have
definitions of the editor which when compared to the internationally accepted definition
of editor both have strengths and weaknesses. Both of them emphasize the responsibility
of an editor for the content of statements and decisions to publish or circulate, including
operators or users of social media platforms.
In contrast, the internationally accepted definition of an editor is broader, encompassing
not only content decisions but also responsibilities in shaping content quality, managing
teams, and ensuring alignment with editorial standards and objectives. While the Punjab
Act and the Ordinance focus on specific legal and digital media contexts, the
internationally accepted definition offers a more comprehensive view of an editor's role
across traditional and digital media landscapes, highlighting the multifaceted nature of
editorial responsibilities.
Comparing the definitions of "newspaper" in the Punjab Defamation Act 2024 and the
Defamation Ordinance 2002 reveals similarities and differences in scope and
terminology. The Punjab Act expands the definition to include websites, applications, or
other social media platforms issuing public news or occurrences, acknowledging the
digital shift in media consumption. Additionally, the Punjab Act grants the government
authority to declare other periodical works as newspapers through official notification,
whereas the Defamation Ordinance vests this power with the Federal Government.
Comparing both definitions, the internationally accepted definition recognizes
newspapers in various formats, including digital platforms like websites and social media
applications reflects the changing landscape of journalism and acknowledges the
importance of online news sources in today's society.
The excerpts from the Defamation Ordinance of 2002 outline specific definitions and
penalties related to defamation, including minimum amounts for damages and remedies
such as apologies and compensatory payments (e.g., minimum compensatory damages of
Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 300,000 for the originator). Similarly, the Punjab Act specifies
minimum compensatory damages of Rs. 3,000,000 for general damages.
The section of the Punjab Defamation Act 2024 imposes stringent restrictions on
commenting during legal proceedings, applying to all involved parties and carrying
significant fines for violations, escalating with each day of non-compliance. Unlike many
international practices, this provision lacks specific defenses, prohibiting any justification
for breaches. While limitations on public statements during legal proceedings are
common, the severity of fines and absence of recognized defenses in this Act may raise
concerns about potential constraints on freedom of expression and due process rights,
diverging from typical international norms and potentially impacting the fairness and
transparency of legal proceedings.
The implementation of the Defamation Act carries various implications, depending on
one's perspective. For bloggers, vloggers, YouTubers, and TikTokers, particularly those
focusing on news, current affairs, commentary, analysis, and viewpoints, this law is
expected to instill much-needed discipline and promote sanity by deterring the
dissemination of derogatory, baseless, and frivolous personal comments that often lack
connection to truth or reality but contribute to sensationalism and societal unrest.
Conversely, traditional media outlets, including print, TV, and radio, which already
adhere to stringent parameters, standard operating procedures (SOPs), checks, balances,
and professional oversight to ensure factual and truthful news reporting, as well as fair
and reality-grounded analysis and commentary, may not perceive a significant impact
from this Act. Politicians, security agencies, courts, and civil and military bureaucracy,
often targets of defamation, might view the Act favorably due to potential protection from unwarranted attacks on their reputation.
