There was a time when courtrooms were the primary arena where justice was debated and determined. Today, that role is increasingly challenged by social media, digital activism, and international advocacy campaigns. A single judicial verdict can trigger global headlines within hours, creating a powerful narrative long before the legal process has reached its conclusion. The case of Dr Mahrang Baloch has become a striking example of this new reality where competing narratives often overshadow the legal proceedings themselves.
The international debate surrounding the case has largely been framed through the lens of human rights. Organisations such as Amnesty International have expressed concern over the conviction and called for her release. While the protection of human rights is an indispensable principle in every democratic society, many observers in Pakistan argue that these assessments have paid insufficient attention to the court’s findings, the prosecution’s case and the broader security environment in which the proceedings took place. A legal dispute cannot be fully understood if only one dimension of the story receives international attention.
The case of Dr Mahrang Baloch has become a striking example of how competing narratives often overshadow the legal proceedings themselves.
From Pakistan’s perspective, this is not a case about suppressing political disagreement or criminalising dissent. The proceedings before the Anti-Terrorism Court concerned criminal allegations examined under Pakistan’s anti-terrorism laws. Whether those allegations ultimately survive judicial scrutiny is a matter for the appellate courts to determine. However, reducing the entire case to political victimisation risks overlooking the legal questions that were central to the prosecution and the trial court’s judgment.
Perhaps the most significant fact missing from much of the international discourse is that the judicial process is still underway. The conviction has already been challenged before the Balochistan High Court, where the trial court’s decision is being reviewed through the constitutional appellate process. Every mature legal system recognises that justice does not end with a trial court’s verdict. Appeals exist precisely to ensure that judgments can be reassessed where necessary. It is therefore premature to portray the outcome as final while the case remains before the courts.
Despite this, a coordinated digital campaign emerged almost immediately after the verdict. Overseas Baloch sub-nationalist groups, affiliated organisations and online activist networks launched hashtags, webinars, lobbying efforts, opinion pieces and social media campaigns aimed at shaping international opinion. This reflects a broader trend in which legal disputes are increasingly accompanied by information campaigns designed to influence public perception before appellate courts have delivered their final decisions.
The growing influence of digital activism raises an important question: should complex criminal cases be decided by evidence presented in court or by narratives amplified across social media? Democracies depend upon independent courts, not online popularity contests. Public debate has an important place in every free society, but it cannot replace judicial examination of evidence, witness testimony, and due process.
The security context of Balochistan also deserves careful consideration. The province has endured years of terrorism, attacks on civilians and security personnel, sabotage of critical infrastructure, and violent insurgency. These realities do not diminish the importance of protecting civil liberties, nor do they predetermine the outcome of any individual case. They do, however, provide essential context for understanding why certain prosecutions proceed under specialised counterterrorism legislation and why the state approaches security-related cases with particular sensitivity.
The debate surrounding Dr Mahrang Baloch has also unfolded against the backdrop of Pakistan’s strategic economic ambitions. National projects such as Gwadar Port, CPEC and the Reko Diq mining project are regarded by Pakistan as vital drivers of economic growth, regional connectivity and long-term development. From Islamabad’s perspective, sustained campaigns that generate negative international perceptions about Balochistan have the potential to undermine investor confidence, discourage foreign investment and affect regional stability at a time when economic cooperation is increasingly tied to geopolitical competition.
This is precisely why the discussion should remain grounded in legal principles rather than political narratives alone. International organisations undoubtedly have an important role in advocating for human rights and monitoring judicial processes. At the same time, respect for judicial independence is equally fundamental. When an appeal is actively before a constitutional court, external pressure, one-sided public statements, or attempts to shape global opinion before the completion of judicial review may create the perception that legal institutions are being judged before they have finished their work.
The rule of law demands patience as much as it demands accountability. Courts should be open to scrutiny, but they must also be allowed to function without premature conclusions imposed by international campaigns or digital pressure. The Mahrang Baloch case has therefore become more than an individual prosecution. It represents a broader contest between legal institutions and digital narratives, between judicial process and information warfare. In an age where hashtags can travel faster than court judgments, it is worth remembering a simple democratic principle: justice is ultimately determined by courts of law, not by the court of public opinion. Until the appellate process reaches its conclusion, the most responsible course for domestic actors, international organisations and global observers alike is to respect the legal process and allow the judiciary to speak with its final voice.
The writer is a freelance columnist.