Nobody should utter words that hold the courts in contempt. Agreed. But what should we do about ‘perceptions’? Perceptions are important. In matters of justice it is said that ‘justice should not only be done, it should also appear to be done’. In other words the importance of justice ‘appearing’ to be done is equally important. In many cases the requirement of justice appearing to be done seems lacking. It is also said that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. Is delay not a very frequent occurrence in our courts? Generations of litigating parties pass away in search of decisions and the court procedures do not end. Delay is used as a strategy. Can we also deny that a lot of money exchanges hands during litigation? And that it is used not as a bribe for judges but between lower functionaries for small favours? Can we deny that several Returning Officers in the recent elections passed comments and showed behaviour not in line with the expectations of an officer of the judiciary? There is no doubt that the judiciary must be held in high esteem, but we must also look back and see why the negative perception is formed. Do the members of the judiciary need to change something to earn that high regard? Respect needs to come from the hearts of the people; it should not be shown out of fear or compulsion. The American actress Mae West is remembered not as much for her histrionics as for her quotes. I am tempted to repeat a relevant dialogue of hers from a court appearance: “Judge: Are you trying to show contempt for this court? Mae West: I was doin’ my best to hide it.” I hope people in the country do not reach a point when they have to ‘do their best to hide’. It is, therefore, desirable that the concept of ‘contempt of court’ does not conflict with the freedom of speech enshrined in the constitution. Judges in that position have to be beyond anger, personal vendettas, likes or dislikes, greed, personal beliefs, and above all the weakness to seek personal popularity. It is a hard call and difficult for an average human being to sustain such a saintly existence. But to sit in the elevated position of a judge such sacrifice is a prerequisite and a national demand. A constant process of introspection and self-analysis has to go on within the person of a ‘judge’ to meet the perception of him and to deliver justice and nothing but justice. It is a bit too much to expect perfect behaviour meriting honest respect for the courts from a society ridden with lawlessness. In a society ruled by lawlessness, the absence of law becomes the unwritten ‘law’. It is a catch-22 situation, but somewhere a beginning has to be made. It was heartening to notice that the Pakistan Supreme Court did take a suo motu notice of the recent killings in Balochistan. In my last article published on Eid day, I had raised the question if the Honourable Chief Justice would consider taking such notice. Most appropriately he did and it enhanced public confidence. Speaking of lawlessness and ‘suo motu’, a strange occurrence was witnessed by almost all Pakistanis and many persons overseas on TV. It was the bizarre hold up at the Islamabad Jinnah Avenue on Thursday, August 15. A person with a woman and two children, holding two automatic weapons, parked his car in the middle of the road, waved his guns, fired, caused panic, and a traffic blockade followed. Half the city seemed to be held hostage. The area was surrounded by law enforcement agencies and non-cooperating public who wished to be ‘eyewitnesses’. I do not need to describe any further as the eyes of all cameras from TV networks were ogling at the event for six hours. During this show of lawlessness, viewers wondered why the police and others did not capture this terrorist named ‘Sikandar’ while visually it seemed possible. Funnily, the media anchors mentioned that the police is paralysed because they fear a suo motu action against them if the offender gets killed in action! The inaction for six hours was appalling. The high-level decision makers were absent from the scene. The interior minister passed a casual order from his car, driving towards Lahore! No politician of the ruling party showed up on the scene. I do not think that this entire inaction flaw was due to the fear of suo motu. I feel this transfer of responsibility and to put the onus on the court is an attempt to hold the suo motu provision in ridicule. After about six hours of the nationally telecast ‘show’ by all TV networks, one single civilian Zamurad Khan emerged from the crowd, got close to the terrorist Sikandar, as if he wanted to enquire about the welfare of Sikandar’s wife and children. He risked his life and pounced upon the terrorist to grab him. Suddenly, the law enforcers woke up, commandos ran and the terrorist was captured. It seemed simple and easy. For six long hours people wondered why such action could not be taken earlier while the terrorist was off guard and within easy reach several times. No it is not the ‘fear of suo motu’. I do not stand with those who hint at the unreasonableness of court action, but still I have to accept that such a ‘perception’ exists. If we have to live happily ‘ever after’ like the endings in fairy tales, then everyone and I mean every individual, inside the justice system and outside it, has to make an effort to respect the law and those who enforce it. The lawmakers, interpreters and enforcers will need to earn that respect. Mutual respect will not come easy. There is no short cut either. Consistent and persistent conscious effort is needed. Can it be a reality? Or will it remain a fairy tale expectation? The writer is the former CEO Pakistan National Council of the Arts; Chairman Fruit processing Industries; Chairman UNESCO Theatre Institute Pakistan and COO ICTV, USA. He is the author of Melluhas of the Indus Valley 8000BC to 500 BC. He can be reached at naeemtahir37@gmail.com