Lahore: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Thursday directed law enforcement and regulatory authorities to make all-out efforts, strictly in accordance with law, to identify and curb elements involved in maligning or defaming the judiciary and undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.
The court made it clear that any action taken must be regulatory and corrective in nature, not vindictive or retaliatory, and must ensure that legitimate freedom of expression is neither stifled nor chilled. It observed that the purpose of such enforcement is not to silence fair criticism but to safeguard the dignity, independence, and authority of the courts through lawful, proportionate, and restrained measures in line with constitutional guarantees.
Justice Ali Zia Bajwa passed these orders while hearing a petition filed by lawyer Chaudhry Pervez Elahi Bhaddar, who challenged an alleged character assassination campaign on social media targeting female judges of the high court.
At the outset of the proceedings, the Director General of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) appeared before the court and submitted a report. He stated that the agency was making utmost efforts to identify and apprehend individuals involved in malicious campaigns aimed at maligning the judiciary. He informed the court that a list of persons involved in such unlawful activities had already been compiled and that necessary legal steps were being taken to bring the perpetrators to justice. He assured the court that the matter was being pursued with seriousness and urgency.
Inspector General of Police Punjab Dr Usman Anwar also appeared before the court and submitted that anyone found involved in defaming or maligning the judiciary would be dealt with firmly and strictly in accordance with the law, with no leniency shown to those engaged in such conduct.
A report was also submitted on behalf of the Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA). Counsel for the PTA informed the court that the authority was fully vigilant and actively performing its statutory role to prevent the dissemination of contemptuous, derogatory, or unlawful content on digital platforms. He added that the PTA was coordinating with relevant law enforcement and investigative agencies to promptly identify, restrict, and remove any content intended to undermine the dignity and authority of the judiciary, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
In its observations, the court noted that the judiciary, like every constitutional institution, is open to fair and reasoned criticism. It held that judges and judicial pronouncements may be subjected to academic, professional, or public scrutiny, provided such criticism is made in good faith, expressed in temperate language, and confined to the reasoning or legal conclusions of judgments. However, the court observed that when criticism imputes motives, bias, dishonesty, or lack of integrity to a judge, or is calculated to erode public confidence in the justice system, it ceases to be protected speech and attracts legal consequences.
The court further referred to Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law, including in relation to contempt of court. It observed that while freedom of expression and press are essential pillars of a democratic order, these rights are not absolute and must be balanced against the need to preserve constitutional values, public order, and the authority and proper functioning of state institutions.
The court adjourned further proceedings in the matter until January 22, 2026.