I. Understanding child protection
Child protection, as generally understood under various federal and provincial acts of Pakistan, refers to the prevention and response to violence, exploitation, abuse, and neglect experienced by children. It encompasses the systems, services, and legal mechanisms that are put in place to identify children at risk and intervene on their behalf. The concept of child protection is narrower than the broader concept of child rights. Child rights extend to survival, health, development, education, and non-discrimination. Child protection, on the other hand, can be called a subset of child rights (all the entitlements that children hold simply by virtue of being a child, including those unrelated to abuse or neglect) as it is concerned specifically with their right to safety from harm. A child protection system[1], then, prevents and responds to violence, exploitation and abuse of children in all contexts including commercial sexual exploitation, trafficking, child labor and harmful practices such as child marriage. More specifically, a child protection system is the set of laws, policies, regulations and services needed across social sectors, especially social welfare, education, health, security and justice, to support the prevention of and response to these risks.
II. Nature and scale of child protection cases in Pakistan
In Pakistan, the types of child protection cases most consistently reported include child sexual abuse, abduction and kidnapping, missing children, child marriage, physical abuse, child labor, and child trafficking. An article[2] recorded in The State of Children in Pakistan portal, draws on Sahil’s annual monitoring report and tracks these categories. The most recent report, covering incidents recorded in the media between January and December 2025, recorded 3,630 child abuse cases nationwide, an eight percent rise over 2024. Abduction was the single most frequently reported category, making up 30.5 percent of cases (1,107), followed by sodomy at 16.4 percent (596), rape at 14.4 percent (522), missing children at 10.1 percent (365), attempted rape at 5.4 percent (195), and attempted sodomy at 3.9 percent (141). Girls accounted for 53 percent of reported victims and boys for 47 percent, children aged 11 to 15 were the most vulnerable age group, and acquaintances remained the category most commonly implicated as abusers. Provincial distribution shows that Punjab alone accounted for 73 percent of all cases reported in 2025, followed by Sindh at 21 percent, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa at 4 percent, and Balochistan together with the federal territory, Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan making up the remaining 2 percent. Punjab, from which the largest share of cases is reported, is also Pakistan’s most populous province, with roughly 127.7 million residents as of the 2023 census, while Sindh’s population stands at approximately 55.7 million, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s at approximately 40.9 million, and Balochistan’s at approximately 14.9 million. Once population is taken into account, the gap between provinces narrows considerably, and the concentration of reported cases in Punjab and Sindh likely reflects stronger media presence and reporting mechanisms in these provinces rather than a proportionally higher rate of abuse. This is aggravated by significant underreporting nationwide.
III. Existing child protection legal framework
At the national level, the Constitution of Pakistan sets the foundational standards: article 25 guarantees equality before the law, article 25-A establishes the right to education, and article 11(3) prohibits the employment of children in hazardous work. Beneath this is the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the general criminal statute that defines offences against children such as rape and sodomy. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2016 operates as an amendment to the Penal Code itself and introduced harsher penalties for child sexual abuse, child pornography and exposure of children to sexually explicit material, while also defining child trafficking more comprehensively. Alongside these sit further national statutes dealing with specific harms: the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2018, the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018, the Zainab Alert, Response and Recovery Act 2020, which established a national mechanism for missing and abducted children. At the provincial and territorial level, the relevant statutes are the Islamabad Capital Territory Child Protection Act 2018, the Punjab Destitute and Neglected Children Act 2004, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act 2010, the Sindh Child Protection Authority Act 2011, and the Balochistan Child Protection Act 2016.
The distinction between the Pakistan Penal Code and child protection is in their function. The Penal Code is a criminal statute: it defines offences against children, such as rape and sodomy, and dictates punishment for offenders once guilt is established through a criminal trial. In contrast, the provincial and territorial child protection acts are administrative and welfare statutes. Rather than defining new offences, they create institutions, officers and courts, which are then tasked with identifying children in need, removing them from danger, managing their cases, and coordinating rehabilitation for them: functions that the reactive and prosecution focused Penal Code was never designed to perform.
This is exactly why child protection laws matter independently of the penal code, because without them a child at risk has no legal pathway to intervention, assessment or placement unless and until a criminal case is already underway. The child protection acts give the state a mechanism to act preventively and protectively rather than only retributively after harm has already been done.
IV. Examining the reporting gap and concept of mandatory reporting
Mandatory reporting, as a legal concept[3], refers to a duty imposed on specified persons, whether particular professionals such as teachers, doctors or social workers, or the general public, to report known or reasonably suspected child abuse to a designated authority. With that duty backed by a penalty (civil or criminal) for non-compliance. It is distinct from a general right to report or complain, which allows any person to bring information forward willingly but has no legal consequences if they choose not to. The presence of a reporting mechanism within a statute, like an office that receives reports or a form for filing a complaint, is not by itself mandatory reporting because the defining feature of mandatory reporting is that it creates an enforceable duty and makes it clear whose responsibility it is to then perform that duty.
None of the five acts that have been reviewed for this brief impose a mandatory reporting duty on the general public or on the professionals that routinely interact with children. In the ICT Child Protection Act 2018, the only reporting obligation that resembles a mandate falls on caregivers, who must inform the police or a Child Protection Officer if a child in their care goes missing[4]. Child protection institutions are required to receive reports of children in need[5] and to act on them[6] but this is a duty of the institutions to respond, not a duty on citizens or professionals to report. Reports that are made are treated as confidential[7], and the only penalty provision in the Act addresses the media disclosing a child’s identity, not a failure to report[8].
The Punjab Destitute and Neglected Children Act 2004 follows a similar pattern. Child Protection Officers are mandated to report cases to the court once a child is taken into custody[9], and authorized officers must file welfare reports on children in private care after custody is granted[10]. Members of the public may report a destitute child on oath, triggering a search warrant if the magistrate is satisfied[11], and any reporter can be examined by the court[12], but this is strictly voluntary. The only penalty provided in this area of the Act is for false reporting[13], not for silence, and police officers are required only to assist Child Protection Officers when asked, not to report cases they themselves encounter.[14]
The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act 2010 states that citizens and executive authorities “shall aid and assist” the Commission, but does not convert this into an enforceable duty to report, nor does it attach a penalty for a citizen or professional who fails to report suspected neglect or abuse[15]. Reporting functions under the Act are exclusive to Child Protection Officers, who receive information and act on it[16] and persons who have been granted post-custody authority and must submit periodic reports[17]. The general public only has the option of laying information before a court in the interest of an abused child after which the court is required to examine the reporter[18]. As with the Punjab Act, this Act penalizes false reporting[19] while remaining silent on the consequences of not reporting.
The Sindh Child Protection Authority Act 2011 places its reporting obligations almost entirely on the Authority itself, which must monitor and report on violations of child protection law[20] and prepare periodic and annual reports[21]. Investigation by the Authority can be triggered by a complaint from any member of the public, and committees separately report back to the Authority on specific matters[22], but again it does not make it an offence for a citizen, teacher, doctor or other professional to withhold knowledge of abuse.
The Balochistan Child Protection Act 2016 goes furthest among the five in describing a reporting procedure. Reports of alleged abuse are registered in a management information system[23], Child Protection Officers must acknowledge and assess them within a fixed timeframe of twenty-four to seventy-two hours[24], and a more quickened protocol applies to children found to be at immediate risk[25]. Even so, the legal duty to report is confined to caregivers, who must notify authorities if a child in alternative care goes missing[26], and to Child Protection Officers. Reporting by the wider public remains voluntary, and the only monetary penalty in the Act, of up to one hundred thousand rupees, is for media on public disclosure of a child’s identity.
The practical consequence, across all five acts, is that a teacher, doctor, nurse, psychologist, social worker, or police officer who becomes aware of suspected child abuse faces no legal repercussions under provincial or territorial child protection law for choosing not to report it. Police officers come closest to an obligation but even this is framed as a duty to assist Child Protection Officers on request or to act in specific circumstances such as a runaway child, rather than as a freestanding duty to report abuse that they personally witness or are told about. Most child abuse cases, if reported immediately, can decrease the chance of the child facing more active abuse. Still, reporting on it is not treated as a legal obligation in these provincial acts and failing to do so bears no consequence. This can endanger a child that is already at risk. Lack of reporting obvious child abuse cases can trap the child in an unsafe environment where their abuse may escalate and cause long-term harm and trauma.
There is a distinction across all five acts between a general right to complain and a duty to report. Each act allows, and in some places actively promotes, a member of the public bringing information about a child at risk to the attention of an officer, institution, or court. None of these acts, however, turns that right into an obligation for the public or professionals, an obligation that carries consequences for those that do not fulfil it. The only enforceable reporting duties in these acts fall on those already inside the child protection system, such as Child Protection Officers, registered caregivers, and in some cases, the police. Even then, those duties are backed by penalties that aim at false reporting or disclosing a child’s identity, and not at the failure to actively report a child at risk.
Mandatory reporting is not a recent or experimental concept internationally, it has been a standard part of child protection law abroad. In the United States, the idea took hold after doctors C. Henry Kempe and Brandt Steele published “The battered child syndrome”. Congress backed this further in 1974 by tying federal child welfare funding to states having mandatory reporting laws. Eighteen states plus Puerto Rico require any person who suspects abuse to report it, while the other states limit the duty to specific professions like teachers, doctors, nurses, childcare workers and police. It is usually triggered by “reasonable suspicion” rather than proof, with not reporting being treated as a crime in most places. Australia works similarly. Only the Northern Territory requires every adult to report, while the rest limit the duty to professions such as teachers, doctors and police, again triggered by reasonable suspicion, with penalties ranging from none to fines or jail depending on the state. Both examples show the same pattern, countries either mandate reporting for a defined list of professions or, less often, for everyone, and they deliberately keep the threshold low, on reasonable suspicion rather than immediate proof.
V. Recommendations and proposed legal reforms
Given that child protection laws in Pakistan are already handled province by province, with each of the five acts running its own system, the simplest way to bring in mandatory reporting would be to amend each act separately, i.e., by adding a section that names who must report, sets the threshold for reporting, and lays out a penalty for not doing so. A single federal law covering the whole country is also an option, however, it would have to work alongside five separate implementing bodies already running child protection practically, since child protection is largely handled at a provincial level. Realistically, the two approaches could work together: a federal law could set basic minimum standards (who counts as a reporter, minimum penalties) while each province or territory can amend its own act, such as how and where to report and who to report to.
On the question of what level of knowledge should be enough to activate the duty to report, the comparison of the other countries above show that a reasonable suspicion or cause to believe is generally enough to file a report, rather than having to provide solid evidence. That is the threshold used across nearly all US states and Australian jurisdictions, since waiting for proof would defeat the purpose of early intervention. The person reporting is not expected to investigate, only to flag the concern to the Child Protection Officers, or their equivalent, who are trained to then assess and verify the report. Adopting a similarly low threshold within Pakistan’s provincial acts would make sense. It would mean that a teacher, a doctor, or any other professional who has a reasonable suspicion of a child being at risk would be required and able to report it, leaving the assessment of whether abuse actually occurred to the Child Protection Officers, institutions, or courts.
Whether the duty should apply only to specified professionals or to everyone, it is clear that both models exist internationally. Most jurisdictions in the United States and Australia limit mandatory reporting to a defined list of professions that have regular contact with children, such as teachers, doctors, nurses, childcare workers, social workers, counsellors, or police, with the reasoning that these are the people best placed, by training and proximity, to recognize the signs of abuse. A smaller number of jurisdictions extend the duty to the general adult population. For Pakistan, given the weak points that have been identified throughout this brief, caregivers and child protection officers are currently the only reporters of any kind, while professionals who spend the most time with children, including teachers, madrasa staff and healthcare workers, have no reporting obligation whatsoever. Starting with a defined professional list would be the most immediately affective, and would be easier to enforce than a universal duty imposed on the entire public at once. A universal duty could then be considered as a second stage, once professional mandatory reporting is in practice.
The above-mentioned points, however, are less straightforward in practice once it is taken into account that a workable mandatory reporting duty would also need to specify who the report goes to. On paper, the answer is the Child Protection Officers or the relevant institutions, and not the family or the educational institution of a child – the distinction between which matters in the context of a country like Pakistan where shame and reputation dictate how abuse should or should not be dealt with. A teacher that suspects that a child is being abused at home should not be expected to report to the family first, since the family itself may be the cause of the abuse or may try to suppress the abuse to save face. Instead, the report needs to go directly to the CPO or their equivalent. The same problem arises in institutional setting such as madrasas where the child may be getting abused by a teacher or staff member that hold authority over the student. Here, too, reporting to the institution’s leadership first risks suppression of the abuse, since their own interest lies in protecting their reputation. The difficulty in making the CPOs and the child protection institutions the designated recipient of the reports is that, currently, most child protection offices are unreachable for those not residing in major cities, and the offices that do exist are understaffed and slow in practice. So even if someone does indeed file a report, the bodies handling the reports can be incredibly slow to respond. Alongside mandated reporting, there needs to be an active investment in the CPOs and Child Protection Institutions. There needs to be an active mechanism that processes reports and acts on them quickly and CPOs presence needs to be less concentrated and more extended throughout the country rather than just in major cities. Without a proper functioning system accompanying mandatory reporting, the gaps found in the five acts reviewed for this brief would simply shift legal issues to implementing ones.
[1] https://www.unicef.org/documents/child-protection-strategy
[2] https://stateofchildren.com/child-abuse-cases-in-pakistan-rise-8-to-3630-in-2025-sahil/
[3] https://aifs.gov.au/resources/resource-sheets/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect
[21] Sindh 2011, sects. 10(k), 20
[23] Balochistan 2016, sect. 11(3)(a)
[24] Balochistan 2016, sect. 12
