Punjab Assembly Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan voiced his astonishment on Sunday regarding the ‘Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders Bill, 2026’, stating he was unaware of the legislation and questioned how it had advanced to a standing committee without his consent.
During a session of the Punjab Assembly, Khan reprimanded the assembly secretariat for failing to inform him about the bill’s introduction. He warned of stringent measures against those responsible for excluding him from the process.
The bill, now under review by the Punjab Assembly’s Standing Committee on Home Affairs, has sparked criticism and protests from civil society and the general public.
Khan challenged the legislative procedure, noting that he had sought clarification from the assembly secretariat. He emphasized that any bill should first be presented to the house before moving forward and questioned how it could have reached the standing committee prematurely.
He further inquired, “When a bill is introduced in the house, isn’t the speaker supposed to be notified? Am I not required to endorse it before it proceeds?”
The ‘Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders Bill, 2026’ was officially introduced on June 8 by Parliamentary Secretary for Law and Parliamentary Affairs Khalid Ranjha. Although Malik Ahmad Khan was presiding initially, the session was chaired by panel member Iftikhar Ahmad Chhachhar when the bill was presented.
In the same session, the speaker reiterated concerns about the conduct of treasury lawmakers, urging members to maintain decorum and exercise restraint. He remarked, “Disrupting proceedings only makes the situation intolerable. I urge all members to demonstrate patience. We have all been part of this journey together for a long time.”
Khan also noted that his attempts to advise members on order were often met with accusations of “delivering lectures,” which then sparked unnecessary debates on social media. These comments followed earlier disputes between the speaker and treasury members over procedural rules during discussions on the provincial budget.
The bill aims to tackle organized crime, public disturbances, and financial and social exploitation through an intelligence-led enforcement framework. It proposes the formation of provincial, divisional, and district intelligence committees tasked with monitoring threats to public safety, minorities, foreigners, and social media misuse.
It defines a broad spectrum of anti-social behaviors, including running gambling or liquor dens, brothels, fraudulent charity collections, hate speech, online misinformation, impersonating officials, aerial firing, brandishing weapons on social platforms, online blackmail, and illegal roadblocks.
District intelligence committees would have authority to conduct inquiries, demand surety bonds, and recommend actions such as blocking identity cards and passports, freezing bank accounts, removing online content, and confiscating electronic devices.
Habitual offenders involved in repeated crimes like robbery, extortion, vehicle theft, or drug offenses could be mandated by magistrates to wear electronic tracking devices for a minimum of three months. Tampering with these devices would result in compulsory imprisonment and a fine of Rs1 million.
The bill also proposes establishing a central registry containing biometric and DNA data of offenders. All offenses under this law would be cognizable and non-bailable, with an appeals process handled by an independent tribunal. If passed, the bill would replace outdated colonial-era laws concerning habitual offenders and ‘goondas’.
