The Digital Nation Act, 2025, represents Pakistan’s attempt to institutionalise digital governance, data exchange, and digital public infrastructure as part of a broader national modernisation agenda. While the Act foregrounds efficiency, interoperability, and centralised coordination through the National Digital Commission and the Pakistan Digital Authority, it adopts a predominantly administrative orientation that is not anchored in technical and inclusive knowledge nor in international human rights norms. When examined through a gender lens and with attention to the rights of religious minorities and transgender persons, the Act reveals significant normative and structural gaps that risk digitising existing inequalities rather than dismantling them.
Pakistan is a State party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which obliges States to eliminate both direct and indirect discrimination and to address structural conditions that disproportionately disadvantage women. Digital governance systems are not neutral tools; when designed without gender-responsive safeguards, evidence suggests that they exacerbate women’s exposure to surveillance, coercion, and technology-facilitated gender-based violence. The Digital Nation Act does not recognise women as a distinct category of rights holders in digital ecosystems, nor does it mandate gender impact assessments, consent-based data processing, or safeguards against misuse of personal data. In a context where women already face high levels of online harassment, blackmail, and digital monitoring, centralised data exchange and digital identity infrastructures without explicit protections are inconsistent with CEDAW’s substantive equality framework, particularly Articles 1, 2, and 5.
From the perspective of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Act raises serious concerns relating to privacy, equality before the law, freedom of expression, and access to an effective remedy. Article 17 of the ICCPR protects individuals against arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, yet the Act facilitates extensive inter-agency data sharing without clearly defining necessity, proportionality, lawful purpose, or independent oversight. The absence of enforceable user rights such as informed consent, access, correction, erasure, or protection against automated decision-making creates a profound imbalance between state power and individual autonomy. This imbalance is particularly harmful for women, religious minorities, journalists, human rights defenders, and transgender persons, who are more likely to be subject to surveillance and data misuse. The restriction of judicial scrutiny over actions taken under the Act further undermines Article 2(3) of the ICCPR, which guarantees access to an effective remedy.
The Digital Nation Act does not recognise women as a distinct category of rights holders in digital ecosystems, nor does it mandate gender impact assessments, consent-based data processing, or safeguards against misuse of personal data.
Religious minorities face distinct and heightened risks within this framework. Pakistan’s minorities have historically been subject to identity-based discrimination, profiling, and exclusion from state services. The Act enables large-scale aggregation of identity and demographic data without recognising religious belief as sensitive data or providing anti-discrimination safeguards in data governance. This omission is particularly troubling in light of ICCPR Article 18, which requires heightened protection for freedom of religion and belief. In contrast, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation and the UK Data Protection Act classify religious belief as “special category data,” subject to strict limitations and enhanced safeguards. The absence of comparable protections in Pakistan’s digital governance framework risks normalising indirect discrimination through algorithmic and administrative practices.
Transgender persons are rendered especially vulnerable by the Act’s silence on gender diversity and identity recognition. Although Pakistan has taken progressive legislative steps through the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018, the Digital Nation Act fails to operationalise self-perceived gender identity within digital identity systems, data exchange layers, or automated decision-making processes. Transgender persons already experience mismatches across databases, denial of services, and heightened exposure to surveillance. Without explicit protections, digital systems risk entrenching algorithmic bias, digital erasure, and exclusion from welfare, healthcare, and employment, in violation of ICCPR guarantees of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination.
These substantive gaps are compounded by structural defects in the Act’s regulatory design. Although the Pakistan Digital Authority is described as an autonomous body, its independence is significantly compromised by Section 27 of the Act that empowers the Federal Government to issue binding policy directives through notification in the Official Gazette, with which the Authority “shall comply.” The mandatory nature of this obligation subordinates regulatory decision-making to executive control and fails to meet internationally accepted standards of data protection oversight. Under Article 52 of the GDPR, supervisory authorities must act with complete independence and must neither seek nor take instructions from any external body, a principle similarly reflected in the UK Data Protection Act and reinforced by UN and Venice Commission standards. When read alongside provisions granting indemnity for actions taken in “good faith” and limiting judicial review, the Act creates a regulatory environment in which accountability is diluted, and effective remedies are constrained. This framework is chaotic as well as incompatible with ICCPR Articles 17 and 2(3) and undermines the already shaky public trust in digital institutions.
The Act’s deficiencies also place Pakistan at odds with its commitments under the Sustainable Development Goals. SDG 5 requires States to eliminate all forms of violence against women, including those facilitated by technology, and to ensure women’s full participation in public life. A digital governance framework that fails to address online gender-based violence, consent, and data misuse cannot meaningfully advance this goal. SDG 16 emphasises inclusive institutions, transparency, accountability, and access to justice. Yet the concentration of regulatory power, limited oversight, and restricted avenues for legal challenge under the Act risk weakening institutional accountability rather than strengthening it.
Comparative global practice increasingly recognises that digital transformation must be rooted in human rights. The GDPR embeds dignity, consent, purpose limitation, and proportionality at the core of data governance. India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, despite its limitations, introduces notice and purpose requirements that constrain arbitrary data use. The UK Data Protection Act reinforces independent oversight through a strong supervisory authority. These frameworks reflect a global shift toward rights-based digital governance that Pakistan has yet to fully embrace.
Therefore, in its current form, the Digital Nation Act, 2025 cannot be regarded as an inclusive or rights-affirming instrument. Its silence on gender, religion, and gender identity, coupled with weak data protection safeguards and compromised regulatory independence, risks reproducing existing hierarchies in digital form. Digital transformation without human rights integration does not modernise governance; it merely digitises inequality. To align with CEDAW, the ICCPR, and the Sustainable Development Goals, Pakistan must reorient its digital governance framework toward substantive equality, consent-based data practices, independent oversight, and explicit protections for women, religious minorities, and transgender persons. Only then can the promise of a digital nation translate into a digital society grounded in dignity, justice, and inclusion.
The writer is a lawyer, social activist and researcher.