Decision taken under Section 11(EE) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
The federal government has formally banned YouTuber and former Pakistan Army officer Major (retd) Adil Farooq Raja after approving his proscription under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
According to an official notification issued by the Cabinet Division on December 26, the decision was taken under Section 11(EE) of the Anti-Terrorism Act following a summary submitted by the Interior and Narcotics Control Division. With this approval, Adil Raja has been declared a proscribed individual under Pakistani law.
Implementation Ordered
The notification directs all relevant authorities to ensure immediate implementation of the ban and to submit a detailed compliance report within seven days of receiving the cabinet’s decision.
While the notification does not publicly outline the specific allegations, Section 11(EE) of the Anti-Terrorism Act empowers the government to proscribe individuals deemed involved in activities considered a threat to national security or public order.
Legal and Political Context
The move reflects an increasing reliance on legal mechanisms to regulate digital content and individuals with large online followings. In recent years, authorities have expanded scrutiny of social media platforms, particularly YouTube, citing concerns over misinformation, incitement, and national security.
The proscription under anti-terrorism legislation carries serious legal implications, including restrictions on financial transactions, movement, and public activity, depending on enforcement measures.
What Happens Next
With the ban now approved, enforcement agencies are expected to take steps to restrict Adil Raja’s activities in accordance with the law. The mandatory implementation report will determine how effectively the decision is carried out and whether further legal action follows.
Conclusion
The government’s decision to ban Adil Raja under the Anti-Terrorism Act marks a significant escalation in the state’s approach toward online political commentary. As debates over free expression, digital influence, and national security continue, this case is likely to remain under close public and legal scrutiny.