he continued ban on X (formerly, Twitter) in Pakistan has ignited intense legal and political debates, not only about the boundaries of digital censorship but also about the fundamental constitutional rights of citizens to access information, form opinions and participate in democratic processes. The internet has become an essential tool for communication, engagement, and participation in the modern world. Therefore, its regulation—especially when it involves blocking access to global platforms—raises serious legal concerns. The ban on X, imposed by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, has far-reaching implications, not only in terms of public opinion and access to information but also for Pakistan’s democratic framework. At the heart of this issue is the right to information, enshrined in Article 19A of the constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to access information in matters of public importance. The Executive’s ability to restrict access to such platforms creates significant legal challenges, primarily because such actions seem to clash with constitutional guarantees and established principles of democratic governance.

The reasons behind the ban on X are multifaceted. Officially, the PTA claimed that the platform was being used to spread misinformation, incite violence and promote content that was harmful to Pakistan’s national security. These reasons have also been cited in the global discourse surrounding the regulation of digital platforms, especially in countries facing internal conflicts and political unrest. Governments often cite the potential risks posed by misinformation and the spread of harmful narratives as justifications for imposing restrictions on certain platforms. An important question is whether such justifications are based on concrete evidence or reflect an attempt to control narratives and suppress dissenting voices.

In Pakistan, the administrative actions have raised suspicions of political overreach. Significantly, some other social media platforms, such as Facebook and Instagram, have not faced the same degree of scrutiny. The selective targeting of X could point to a strategic move to restrict political opposition and independent media voices, a practice that undermines the principles of freedom of expression and the right to information.

The legal dimensions of the ban are rooted in constitutional principles that guarantee freedoms of speech and expression under Article 19, but with reasonable restrictions in the interest of national security, public order or morality. However, the proportionality test must be applied to any restriction on fundamental rights. The government must demonstrate that the ban is proportionate to the alleged harm. A blanket ban on X may be considered disproportionate, particularly when it restricts access to information that is critical to public discourse, accountability and political participation. The principle of procedural fairness demands that such decisions be made transparently, with a clear justification and follow public consultation, lacking in this case. The PTA’s decision to ban X without any meaningful public dialogue or scrutiny raises serious concerns about the Executive’s potential ultra vires actions, as the government may have overstepped its legal authority, particularly in blocking access to platforms that are integral to the right to information.

The impact of the ban on X on public opinion cannot be overstated. Public opinion is not merely a collection of individual views, but rather the aggregation of diverse, often competing perspectives that contribute to a dynamic, pluralistic understanding of national issues. Social media platforms like X allow citizens to engage in real-time debates, participate in political discussions and express dissent against government policies or actions. This free flow of information fosters an environment of democratic deliberation where opinions can be formed, refined and contested. The ban on X, however, stifles this process by denying citizens access to a critical platform for debate. What is more concerning is the fact that the ban disproportionately affects political opposition, activists, journalists and civil society organisations that rely on X to communicate their messages to a global audience. This creates an environment where the dominant narratives—often shaped by the government or its allies—are left unchallenged. In essence, the public is deprived of a plurality of perspectives, leading to a skewed and manipulated perception of national issues.

This is where the legal implications of information manipulation become particularly critical. The government’s action in restricting access to X is akin to controlling the flow of information and, by extension, the formation of public opinion. Manipulation of public opinion is a constitutional concern since it can undermine the very foundation of a democracy—the ability of citizens to form independent opinions based on a range of information sources. By denying access to a major platform for information exchange, the state is not only restricting access to data but is limiting the citizens’ ability to make informed decisions about national affairs. Whether it is political campaigns, social issues or government policies, the flow of information is essential for meaningful public discourse. The ban on X, therefore, effectively curtails this flow and forces citizens to rely on government-controlled narratives. In this sense, the ban is more than just a restriction on a digital platform; it is an attempt to reshape public perception, a tactic that resembles the manipulation of public opinion often seen in authoritarian regimes.

The erosion of democratic values in Pakistan due to the ban on X merits serious legal scrutiny. Democracy relies on the free exchange of ideas, the ability to critique those in power and the citizens’ right to participate in the political process without fear of retaliation or censorship. The continuing ban on X represents a direct challenge to these democratic principles. By restricting access to a global platform that serves as a vital avenue for political engagement, the state is undermining the fundamental democratic tenet of free expression. This not only harms the ability of opposition parties and civil society to voice their opinions but also silences dissenting views, effectively limiting the scope of democratic engagement. If citizens are not allowed to freely express their views, especially through widely used platforms like X, the very concept of democracy starts to erode.

The legal perspective on this issue becomes even more pronounced when we consider the potential long-term consequences for democratic governance. The right to information and freedom of expression are not merely abstract principles but essential tools for citizens to hold their governments accountable. This trend poses a grave threat to democracy in Pakistan, as it fosters a climate of political control and disables the checks and balances essential for a functioning democracy.

Countries like China and Russia have long been criticised for their control over digital platforms, restricting access to social media and other online spaces that challenge the state narrative. While Pakistan has not yet reached the same level of censorship seen in these authoritarian regimes, the continued ban on X points toward an increasingly repressive approach to managing public discourse. If democracy is to thrive in Pakistan, the governments must resist the temptation to emulate these practices. Instead, they should embrace a digital environment where free expression and access to information are protected as fundamental rights.

Banning forums for freedom of speech is like silencing the heart of democracy. Without the open exchange of ideas, a society loses its ability to challenge, evolve and ensure that all voices, no matter how unpopular, are heard.

The writer is an advocate of High Court, a founding partner at Lex Mercatoria and a visiting teacher at Bahria University’s Law Department. She can be reached at minahil.ali12@yahoo.com