Everyone must acknowledge that the law needs to be enforced and implemented, otherwise it’s just ‘ink and paper wasted’. Why is not the effort and the intellect wasted, why is the requirement necessitating the promulgation of a law overlooked, and why is the time unaccounted for? The notion within the inverted commas represents the materialistic mindset that has plagued us to the core as we tend not to understand things in-depth. The people capable of influencing tend to form general popular opinions in such a cosmetic and self-perceived notion that the public is easily manipulated to believe the unreal. Moreover, the fact that people do not read neither do they understand (even if they read) yet are courageous enough to make comments on given hearsay pretext is the problem.
The primary concern of the law is to penalise the wrongdoings. The courts of law are the competent forum of try the accused rather than be adjudged on the popular public opinion; had that been the case, it could have been obvious that one government adjudges the previous government (and preceding political heads) of malpractices and corruption; therefore, everyone is in jail—no exception.
Even though well framed laws are in place yet, and unfortunately, only few—even within the legal fraternity—carry the essential understanding of the law. The popular public opinion—which in most cases is biased and opinionated—shadows the actual essence of the laws which are more harmful than anything. Limited information and understanding accompanied by manipulative theories and conspiracies wreak havoc. This perception leads to the hampering of progress and understanding that the effectiveness of the law is in its use, not in it being termed as lost ‘ink and paper’. It would not be wrong to suggest that the happenings in the sacred places are an outcome of the same.
Every government—as is evident by current government as well as precedents—blames the preceding governments for the bad condition of the State. Imran Khan carried the agenda of eliminating corruption and bringing the corrupt to justice; however, the agenda is viewed to be targeted against a few (powerful) individuals. The accused portray it as abusive use of legislation against targeted audiences when on the contrary it could be argued that the law is just being enforced rather than exploited. The case is equally, at least in the process of being equated, well placed when the current governing party is continuously criticising the predecessor of abusing and violating the constitution, vilifying national institutions, and conducting a manipulative drama to stay in power.
What needs to be understood is that the notion presented to the general public at times might seem to be an aggressive pursuit by one against the other, when in fact the law operates in much different dynamics. The courts are responsible to apply the law as is without moulding it to the requirements of anyone. The courts do absorb external pressures without attempting to strike a balance when it comes to power strugglers, yet adjudicating on the premise of law alone. In doing so, even the courts are targeted and criticised for taking sides, only when the courts are duly operating under its power and authority though.
Popular perceptions are stubborn by their very characteristic and are hard to mend not only because of support for a certain person/political party but also because there is no reason at all, given no one knows the real reason. Nonetheless, the good part is that the law, at least, is stubborn for the good.
The primary concern of the law is to penalise the wrongdoings. The courts of law are the competent forum of try the accused rather than be adjudged on the popular public opinion; had that been the case, it could have been obvious that one government adjudges the previous government (and preceding political heads) of malpractices and corruption; therefore, everyone is in jail—no exception.
Even though well framed laws are in place yet, and unfortunately, only few—even within the legal fraternity—carry the essential understanding of the law. The popular public opinion—which in most cases is biased and opinionated—shadows the actual essence of the laws which are more harmful than anything. Limited information and understanding accompanied by manipulative theories and conspiracies wreak havoc. This perception leads to the hampering of progress and understanding that the effectiveness of the law is in its use, not in it being termed as lost ‘ink and paper’. It would not be wrong to suggest that the happenings in the sacred places are an outcome of the same.
Every government—as is evident by current government as well as precedents—blames the preceding governments for the bad condition of the State. Imran Khan carried the agenda of eliminating corruption and bringing the corrupt to justice; however, the agenda is viewed to be targeted against a few (powerful) individuals. The accused portray it as abusive use of legislation against targeted audiences when on the contrary it could be argued that the law is just being enforced rather than exploited. The case is equally, at least in the process of being equated, well placed when the current governing party is continuously criticising the predecessor of abusing and violating the constitution, vilifying national institutions, and conducting a manipulative drama to stay in power.
What needs to be understood is that the notion presented to the general public at times might seem to be an aggressive pursuit by one against the other, when in fact the law operates in much different dynamics. The courts are responsible to apply the law as is without moulding it to the requirements of anyone. The courts do absorb external pressures without attempting to strike a balance when it comes to power strugglers, yet adjudicating on the premise of law alone. In doing so, even the courts are targeted and criticised for taking sides, only when the courts are duly operating under its power and authority though.
Popular perceptions are stubborn by their very characteristic and are hard to mend not only because of support for a certain person/political party but also because there is no reason at all, given no one knows the real reason. Nonetheless, the good part is that the law, at least, is stubborn for the good.
