The hard state

THE Punjab government has recently drafted a bill “to provide for control of habitual offenders and anti-social behaviour that affect the writ of state, cause public nuisance and expose society to criminal activities” in the province. The proposed law will replace The Restriction of Habitual Offe­nders (Punjab) Act, 1918, and the Punjab Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959; one a pre-independence colonial preventative law to restrict activities of habitual offenders, and the latter a post-independence drive by a military governor to restrain ruffians in 1959. Both laws have outlived their utility and effectiveness, and the Punjab government has come up with an alternative for deterrence against deviant and anti-social behaviour. This approach reflects the mindset of a ‘hard state’, ie, terrorising people into submission. Such laws help unpopular governments curb dissent through draconian legislation. Section 6 of the proposed law contains some very controversial definitions of so-called anti-social behaviour: causing “fear or alarm to the public by threats, verbally or in writing or through social media, or by making, publishing or circulating false statements, rumours or reports”. Another provision of deviant behaviour refers to the dissemination “through electronic means or through print or social media platforms, anything which he knows to be untrue and based on misinformation or disinformation”. And publishing “on social media platform, provocative content with obscene objects including display of weapons or arms or knives”. All these objectionable activities are contained as offences in either the Pakistan Penal Code or special laws like Peca and the Anti-Terrorism Act. Is an attempt being made to create a parallel administrative punitive system to avoid judicial due process that involves registering cases, collection of evidence through investigations, prosecution and trial of such cases before the courts of law? Administrative tribunals comprising retired judge