Pakistan court seeks YouTube ban on Imran Khan, critics over ‘anti-state’ content

A Pakistani court has ordered the blocking of 27 YouTube channels, including those of former prime minister Imran Khan and several prominent journalists, citing the dissemination of what it called “anti-state material” and “defamatory content” targeting state institutions.

Many of the blocked accounts are either directly affiliated with the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) -- whose founder Imran Khan remains in prison -- or belong to individuals widely regarded as anti-establishment. The list includes PTI’s official YouTube channel, as well as several commentators and journalists critical of the current government.

The directive was issued on June 26 by Judicial Magistrate Abbas Shah of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) Court in Islamabad. In the ruling, the court directed Google LLC—the operator of YouTube—to block or remove access to the specified channels.

“In the light of facts explained and evidence presented by the enquiry officer, this court is convinced that subject matter constitutes offenses punishable under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act and Penal Laws of Pakistan,” the court stated in its order.

The directive came in response to an application submitted on June 2 by the Cyber Crime Circle of the National Cyber Crime Investigating Agency (NCCIA). The agency claimed its inquiry (Enquiry No. 717/2025) had found that the 27 channels were involved in “disseminating and propagating fake news and misleading information against the State Institutions,” which it said could “cause fear, panic, disorder or unrest in the general public or society.” It further alleged that the content included “defamatory and fake remarks” that violated the privacy and dignity of state officials.

According to the NCCIA, the channels also aimed to incite the public and military personnel by “creating a feeling of ill-will among pillars of the state.” It requested that the court issue a subpoena to Google LLC, headquartered in San Bruno, California, to block or remove the listed channels.

Among those targeted by the order are several major political voices and independent journalists. The list includes Haider Mehdi, Siddique Jaan, Sabee Kazmi, Orya Maqbool Jan, Arzoo Kazmi, Rana Uzair Speaks, Sajid Gondal, Habib Akram, Matiullah Jan MJtv, Asad Toor Uncensored, Imran Riaz Khan, Naya Pakistan, Sabir Shakir, and Aftab Iqbal. Other affected channels include Real Entertainment TV, the official Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) account, Daily Qudrat, Abdul Qadir, Charsadda Journalist, Naila Pakistani Reaction, Wajahat Saeed Khan, Ahmad Noorani, Nazar Chohan, Moeed Pirzada, Makhdoom Shahabuddin, and Shayan Ali.

PTI denounces action, vows legal challenge

In a swift reaction, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), the party of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, condemned the court order, calling it “a serious attack on freedom of expression” and part of a broader campaign to suppress dissenting voices.

“This is yet another blow to press freedom in Pakistan,” said the party in a statement. It vowed to challenge the order both domestically and internationally, including in U.S. courts, and urged Pakistan’s chief justice to intervene against what it described as a “dangerous authoritarian shift.” The statement also referenced previous actions, including media blackouts, forced journalist exiles, and the killing of journalist Arshad Sharif.

Affected journalists raise concerns over due process

Prominent journalists whose channels are on the blocked list say they were not notified of the inquiry or given a chance to respond.

Veteran journalist Matiullah Jan, whose YouTube channel was among those named, told Nukta: “This court order was issued without our knowledge. The court did not hear us, no notice was sent about the FIA enquiry.”

He said he received an email from YouTube but was not informed of the specific objectionable content.

“This isn’t a final order -- it's procedural. YouTube can’t act on this alone,” he said. “Even India did the same with journalists during the Pak-India conflict but later unblocked the channels.”

Asad Ali Toor, also affected by the order, said: “This isn’t the first time the state has attacked my YouTube channel. They’ve applied firewalls and sent complaints to YouTube before -- but none of it ever violated the platform’s guidelines.”

Toor added that the government had previously frozen his and his family’s bank accounts, which courts later deemed illegal.

“This court order is just a continuation of the campaign against me,” he said. “But I won’t stop reporting on enforced disappearances, unconstitutional military involvement in politics, or the rights of the Baloch people.”

He confirmed that neither the court nor the NCCIA contacted him before the order.

Siddique Jan echoed similar concerns, telling Nukta that he only learned of the court order through an email from YouTube.

“The FIA never informed me of any enquiry, nor did I receive a court notice. This government pretends to be strong but is acting in a cowardly manner. They think people are provoked by YouTube channels -- but people’s frustrations come from real-life struggles like inflation, rent, and medical bills.”

Jan said the affected individuals plan to pursue legal action and will also respond to YouTube with a detailed report, outlining how the order violates both domestic and international legal norms.

Legal and digital rights experts raise alarm

Digital rights advocate Fariha Aziz criticized the court’s order as legally unsound and procedurally flawed.

“This court order is vague, non-speaking, and lacks specific reasons. It doesn’t even mention which PECA provisions were violated,” Aziz told in comments to Nukta.

She noted that powers under Section 37 of PECA were transferred to the yet-to-be-formed Social Media Regulatory Authority after the PECA Amendment Act 2025. Until then, only the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) may exercise interim regulatory authority.

“This hasn’t gone through PTA. Court orders for takedowns must follow proper legal procedure—and this one doesn’t,” Aziz said.

She added that even YouTube’s notices to affected users are “too vague,” preventing creators from knowing which content is being targeted.

“This is the same kind of censorship we criticized India for. Now we’re doing it ourselves.”

Constitutional and tech law expert Advocate Hassan Abdullah Niazi, former lead counsel for Meta in South and Central Asia, called the court’s decision “legally defective.”

“The primary issue is that it’s not a ‘speaking’ order—there’s no legal reasoning, no reference to specific violations. That alone is enough to have it overturned.”

He added that any speech restriction must meet the ‘reasonableness’ test under Article 19 of Pakistan’s Constitution.

“Blocking an entire account must be shown to be a proportionate response. That hasn’t been done here.”

Niazi cited past judgments, including the 2019 Awami Workers Party case, where the Islamabad High Court ruled that content removal must involve due process and the right to be heard.

“YouTube is a signatory to the Global Network Initiative, which obliges it to consider human rights in its decisions. If YouTube complies with this order, it would contradict its own stated commitments.”