LAHORE: Punjab Assembly Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan deferred further proceedings on the Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Bill 2026 after opposition lawmaker Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan objected to it on constitutional and procedural grounds, including the provincial legislature’s competence.
Through the bill, the Punjab government has proposed sweeping changes to the anti-terrorism law that could allow terrorism cases to be tried under a highly confidential regime, including keeping the identities of judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and witnesses secret.
Raising his objections, PTI’s Rana Aftab termed the bill “unconstitutional” and demanded open and fair trials in terrorism cases.
Meanwhile, Law Minister Rana Muhammad Iqbal maintained that the standing committee had discussed the bill threadbare and that the opposition should have raised its objections there.
The Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Bill 2026
The bill seeks to insert a new Section 21AAA into the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, creating a “special security case” mechanism for cases in which participants are considered to require extraordinary protection.
Under the proposed law, a designated authority — an officer of at least BS-20 whose identity would itself remain confidential — could declare a case or a class of cases a special security case. At the authority’s request, the chief justice of the Lahore High Court would assign the case to an Anti-Terrorism Court judge.
The bill also proposes that the identities of judges, public prosecutors, defence counsel, police officers, witnesses and other persons involved in such proceedings “shall not be disclosed”. Judicial orders would carry official titles instead of the judges’ names, while witnesses would be identified through codes issued by the designated authority.
The proceedings could be held at secure premises or conducted through video links, including from prisons. The proposed provision would also allow the government to adopt other security measures it considers appropriate.
However, the proposed legislation has raised serious constitutional and judicial concerns, particularly over the transfer of powers traditionally exercised by courts to an executive authority.
Aftab’s legal and constitutional note argues that the proposed system goes beyond witness protection and could create what amounts to “anonymous proceedings”.
It points out that an accused person would not be able to challenge the constitution of the tribunal, seek the recusal of a judge or effectively question the judge’s independence if the judge’s identity remained concealed.
The proposed sealed record has also been criticised as potentially undermining the right of appeal. Under the existing anti-terrorism act, the trial record is required to be transmitted to the high court, while the accused is entitled to a copy of the judgment.
The note further argues that keeping the record sealed with both the chief justice and the designated authority could make appellate scrutiny difficult.
The proposed provision also gives the designated authority a role in selecting prosecutors. The prosecutor general would provide a panel of five public prosecutors, from which the designated authority would assign one to the case.
Another contentious provision allows the regime to be applied to a “class of cases”, rather than requiring a case-by-case judicial determination.
The note argues that this could create a standing exception to open justice and leave considerable room for misuse because the bill does not clearly define what constitutes “extraordinary protection”. It also provides no specific mechanism for the accused to challenge the classification, no provision for periodic review and no sunset clause.
The proposal has further been questioned on the grounds that existing law already provides several safeguards for threatened participants in terrorism cases.
Section 21 of the ATA allows courts to hold proceedings in camera and restrict the publication of names of judges, prosecutors, counsel and witnesses. The Punjab Witness Protection Act 2018 also provides mechanisms for protecting witnesses and allows for proceedings through secure arrangements.
The note maintains that the proposed law could therefore create an overlapping regime rather than filling a clearly identified legal gap.
It also raises questions about the separation of judicial and executive powers under the Constitution, arguing that decisions concerning the conduct of trials, appointment of prosecutors and custody of judicial records should remain within the judicial framework and under the supervision of the high court.
The bill’s “notwithstanding” clause, which gives the proposed provision effect over the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure, has also been flagged as a potential source of conflict with federal legislation and constitutional provisions.
The proposed legislation comes amid security concerns surrounding judges, prosecutors, investigators and witnesses involved in terrorism cases. Its stated objective is to provide extraordinary protection to participants in such proceedings while maintaining fair-trial guarantees.
The note, however, suggests that if the assembly intends to strengthen security arrangements, the bill should retain judicial control over the process. It recommends that the judge’s identity remain known to the parties and the appellate court, while witness anonymity should be allowed only through a reasoned judicial order.
It further proposes deleting the provision allowing the mechanism to cover entire classes of cases and restricting the executive authority to recommending and arranging security rather than assigning prosecutors or issuing directions on how trials should be conducted.
The note also calls for the trial record to remain available to the high court in usable form, judicial review of any special-security declaration and a sunset provision.
At its core, the debate over the bill is whether enhanced security for those involved in terrorism cases can be achieved without compromising the constitutional guarantees of an independent judiciary, a fair trial and an effective appeal.
The bill is aimed at protecting those at risk, but its proposed method of doing so — particularly the secrecy surrounding judges and the expanded role of an executive authority — is likely to become the central point of debate in the Punjab Assembly.
