They adopted the stance that the ordinance aims to stifle criticism and debate on the actions of public office holders in the garb of action against fake news and disinformation. They said that criticism of the actions of the public office holders was necessary for a vibrant democracy. They also said that Section 44 (a)(5) inserted in the ordinance - that bounds the courts to decide defamation cases within six months - will pressurize the judges hearing the cases.
'Ordinance aims to stifle criticism and debate on public office holders’ actions'
They argued, “The freedom to comment on the conduct of public officials and bodies is essential to good governance yet under the garb of punishing defamatory statements, Sections 2 and 3 of the impugned ordinance curtail the right to information provided for by Article 19A of the Constitution. Insofar as section 20 is concerned, governments and its bodies, agencies, authorities, departments cannot claim and enjoy a general right to reputation that can be protected either under civil or criminal law.”