Anyone who grew up in Pakistan in the 1970s would be familiar, if not besotted, with Uncle Sargam. Uncle Sargam and his team need no introduction. The diversity of characters, the pearls of wisdom and the satire imparted through Massi Museebatay, Haiga, Bonga, Noni, Hadharam and Raula to name a few, left imprints on people who had access to television in those days and even later. Raula was Uncle Sargam’s sidekick whom he affectionately referred to as ‘Small Crockery’, Chota Bhandaa, Quarter Plate’ due to his inability at times to understand the larger issues. In one episode, Uncle Sargam types an application to the Municipal Corporation alleging that Raula had been assaulted with aadhi sarak (half a road) by a boy! As Uncle explains, no one pays any attention to anything unless and until facts are exaggerated! It transpires that Raula was hit with the crush/pebbles from the material left by the contractors during the construction of the road. The past three weeks have caused much excitement in our country with every possible kind of ‘gate’ being opened, closed, banged, scaled…you name it! We have seen criticism on the judiciary, the lawyers, the media and the politicians. A glaring need that has emerged is adherence to a code of conduct. A Code of Conduct laid down for the Judges of the superior judiciary sets out principles and guidelines to be observed by them not only in their judicial duties but also in personal dealings. This code was amended in August 2009 to add Article XI, which reads: “No Judge of the superior judiciary shall render support in any manner whatsoever, including taking or administering oath in violation of the oath, of office prescribed in the Third Schedule to the Constitution, to any authority that acquires power otherwise than through the modes envisaged by the Constitution of Pakistan.” This addition is an acknowledgement of the errors made earlier and a resolve to emerge as a changed judiciary after the events 2007. However much he has been criticized, the fact remains that the honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan did step down from the bench hearing Arsalan Iftikhar’s case, thus honouring the code of conduct. The lawyers have their own Code of Conduct, which is specified in the Practitioners and Bar Council Act 1973. This code lays down the guidelines to be followed in their professional dealings and empowers the bar councils to punish lawyers for misconduct. The Press Council Ordinance 2002 includes an enforceable ‘Ethical Code of Practice’ for the media, both print and electronic, so that it may function “in accordance with the canons of decency, principles of professional conduct and precepts of freedom and responsibility to serve the public interest by ensuring an unobstructed flow of news and views to the people.” It states that, “honesty, accuracy, objectivity and fairness shall be the guidelines for the press while serving the public interest in any form of publication such as news items, articles, editorials, features, cartoons, illustrations, photographs and advertisements, etc.” Also that “the press shall strive to uphold standards of morality and must avoid plagiarism and publication of slanderous, libellous material”, and “publish and disclose all essential and relevant facts and ensure that information it disseminates is fair and accurate.” It places a restriction on biased reporting, unverified material and “expression of comments and conjecture as established fact”. Any “generalisation based on the behaviour of an individual or a small number of individuals will be termed unethical.” After the Bokhari-Lucman-Riaz fiasco, there has been a lot of outcry. Since the issue is sub judice, I will not comment further, but what has happened is that now there is talk of media accountability. I have seen talk shows where ‘experts’ have been equating following a code of conduct to somehow taming and controlling the media by restricting freedom of speech. Article 19 of the Constitution gives every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of the press. However, it is not a blanket or absolute right and is “subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, [commission of] or incitement to an offence.” Entwined with this right are the fundamental rights of citizens to life, liberty, body, reputation, property, dignity, fair trial, equality and so forth. Nowhere in the world is freedom of speech and expression an absolute right that can be exercised to the detriment of another. Article 204 of the Constitution empowers the superior courts with the power to punish a person who “abuses, interferes with or obstructs the process of the Court in any way or disobeys any order of the Court; scandalises the Court or otherwise does anything, which tends to bring the Court or a Judge of the Court into hatred, ridicule or contempt; does anything which tends to prejudice the determination of a matter pending before the Court; or does any other thing which, by law, constitutes contempt of the Court.” Article 63 prohibits parliament from discussing ‘the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties” and the same restriction applies to the provincial assemblies by virtue of Article 114. Pakistan is not the only country that has granted this necessary protection to the superior courts. This week a shameful episode occurred in the Punjab Assembly when a government member used despicable language against female members from the opposition benches. Worse is the fact that there is no ethical code of conduct for parliamentarians. There was talk of formulating one in 2010 in the National Assembly and a committee was formed, but I have been unable to find one on the website or otherwise. Similarly, there is none in the Punjab Assembly. In such cases, “defamatory, indecent, un-parliamentary or undignified” language can be expunged from the proceedings by the Speaker’s orders. There are reports that the concerned members have been suspended from the current session. But is that enough? Most of the civilised world has ethical codes of conduct, which are adhered to strictly, even in parliaments. In Pakistan, we have none for parliamentarians and the ones in other professions are apparently for cosmetic reasons. The lines between freedom of speech and expression and defamation and contempt have become somewhat skewed with no accountability. No one has the right to defame or ridicule another deliberately and knowingly in order to lower his esteem and integrity. Fair comments made in good faith are acceptable but to malafidely impeach the credibility of any person is despicable. While use of temperate language in discussing decided cases is acceptable, rude gestures, obscenity, scandalous language, outrageous behaviour, planted interviews and false reporting, whether in the courts, media or parliament all violate norms of decency and ethical conduct. The bodies entrusted with the enforcement of the codes of conduct need to be strengthened and depoliticised. The judiciary, lawyers, journalists/anchors and parliamentarians have the power to shape public opinion; they hold a unique position of public trust, which either helps protect or violate the rights of others; they have the power to lead by example or destroy by unethical acts. Uncle Sargam was right — exaggerated facts and behaviour gain immediate attention. But it is our duty to inculcate in ourselves the highest norms of decency, morality, integrity and accountability. Otherwise, we are nothing but Small Crockery: Chota Bhandaa! The writer is an advocate of the high court