Institutional critique was something that had just reached the shores of the social discourse. Some would probably argue that it is a “freedom of expression”, in the margins, only no longer with the same exotic feeling of 'newness' to it, and thus already became fancy to engage with. Is it justifiable? At least if we measure by so called 'street-credibility' in slang, or 'symbolic value', somehow it seems as if what was so quickly labeled 'institutional critique', has found a fertile ground. They did it too fast, and too quickly became yet another label for yet another cultural trend.
Without the independence of the judiciary and the freedom of the media, the concept of democracy is not possible. The extent to which the media and courts are free in Pakistan is unparalleled anywhere in the world. The rule of law is ensured by the courts. Peace in the country can only be guaranteed by the rule of law. Courts and media have entered a new era in our country.
The unwarranted criticism on army and other institutions like judiciary entails Penal consequences. Even the constitution of Pakistan which is a sacred document protects dignity of these institutions by placing reasonable restrictions against freedom of expression. Article 19 says "Under the Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the Press, subject to any 'reasonable restriction', imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan."
The criticism which has now become a tool to defame institutions is not even allowed in the most developed countries. Since there are no restrictions on media and social media, hence they are free to mudslinging. This is the reason the victim prefers to file a defamation suit in the foreign jurisdiction as in some cases the complainant won the case against ARY TV in the UK while in Pakistan it’s like chasing a wild goose.
Independent media is not an enemy or an opponent of any government; it is a forum for expressing dissent or criticism. Free media gives government suggestions or a chance to correct mistakes. In particular, democratic governments should encourage freedom of the media because the rulers have to go back to the people. The rulers who suppress the media fail to understand the sentiments of the people and ultimately fall prey to the wrath of the people.
With the advent of social media, governments around the world are realizing that the repression of print and electronic media has far-reaching consequences. On the one hand, the credibility of print and electronic media is affected because people think that this media is under pressure from the government and powerful circles and on the other hand, public outrage on social media in the form of misinformation is dangerous to the situation.
In fact, sometimes its disadvantages outweigh its benefits, be it religious, physical, or social. However, circumstances and events show that even those who use social media legally cannot protect themselves from illegal things. The impact is far beyond the imagined consequences.