Anti-judiciary trolling

Article 184(3) of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to take suo motu notice "if it considers that a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by the constitution is involved". That the country has "inadequate health facilities to battle the epidemic" is a fact. Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmad took due suo motu notice and during its hearing by a five-member bench made certain observations that did not sit well with a section of media. Quite a few unsavoury comments were made against the honourable judges; some described it as revival of judicial activism while others made rather nasty remarks. As to why these observations came about there is logic to it. The suo motu notices are usually initiated by the Chief Justice if he forms an opinion that something is seriously wrong and the apex court is required to intervene directly. Given that frame of mind it is hard for judges to opt for disinterested legal detachment as they do in usual hearings of cases. Falling far short of putting in place effective strategic plans to battle the lethal virus the governments, federal and provincial, apparently nurture conflicting mindsets grossly reeking with traditional political antagonism. No wonder then the court overturned the Punjab government's ban on inter-provincial movement, directed Sindh government to provide information how it distributed cash relief among the people and took to task SAPM on Health Dr Zafar Mirza for his purported incompetence. The court's observations were not based on hearsay - the truth in them was conceded by Prime Minister Imran Khan himself who severally reprimanded Dr Mirza for his failure in not presenting in an appropriate manner the government's endeavours with regard to the fight against the pandemic. The jury is still out on the question whether or not Dr Mirza had done better as his boss expected.

In fact, the failure on the part of the federal and provincial governments in hammering out matching responses to the deadly virus is too obvious to be attributed to a prejudiced outlook. How much of social media's take on the apex court's observations is politically inspired and fair-minded the prime minister has tasked the FIA chief to reach a conclusion in this regard. He is said to have taken a very serious view of the campaign on social media in which uncalled-for immoderate and intemperate language had been used against the apex court judges, including the Chief Justice of Pakistan. This is a huge challenge tasked to the FIA chief, given the source-security enjoyed by the trollers and their reach to the vox populi. The prime minister is spot on by ordering the inquiry, essentially because the thrust of anti-court trolling tends to suggest that the court has earned the negative comment for its observations about the colossal failure both on the part of federal and provincial governments. The courts do not object to fair and open-minded critique of their verdicts, but that's not the case here - the take by social media reeks with prejudice and doesn't seem to be a product of a fair-minded independent observer, who is otherwise afraid of telling the truth in public.