THE protagonists in the unedifying spectacle that has become Pakistani politics once again are testing the waters ahead of what will presumably be either a no-holds-barred August or a damp squib.

Now it is the turn of former chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to rail against his opponents — or rather just PTI chief Imran Khan, who has relentlessly attacked Mr Chaudhry for his alleged role in the grand conspiracy that Mr Khan claims led to his defeat in the May 2013 elections.

Twenty billion rupees worth of a defamation suit may seem like a lot of money to restore the reputation and honour of a public figure who, despite never directly being in politics so far, has had an intensely political role on the national stage.

But in this case Mr Chaudhry may have a point. After all, it is the PTI itself that has refined the art of slapping defamation suits — or the threat, such as it is worth, thereof — against perceived opponents in the political and media arenas. In some ways, then, the circle of defamation has come full circle.

Iftikhar Chaudhry sends Rs20 billion libel notice to Imran Khan

Yet, tempting as it may be to disregard the claim of one public figure being attacked in the arena of politics by another public figure, it is worth noting that the PTI chief has taken criticism of the judiciary into a rather troubling and unhappy direction.

While the right to criticise and even intensely disagree with judgements of the judiciary has been recognised by the courts and must necessarily be protected in the public interest, Mr Khan has introduced a personalised form of attack that focuses on the character and motives of senior judges rather than the content of their decisions.

Clearly, the PTI chief cannot have forgotten that he was himself a staunch defender of the very judiciary led by Mr Chaudhry when the former chief justice and sections of the superior judiciary were under attack, or at least subject to strong criticism and the grinding of the rumour mill, from other political quarters.

What Mr Khan appeared to understand then he seems to have forgotten now: whoever has whatever grievance — and there can surely be many — against a justice of the Supreme Court, a judge represents an institution and that institution is always collateral damage when attacks are personalised and misguided.

While it is Mr Chaudhry who has threatened to move the courts against Mr Khan, perhaps the PTI chief ought to back down from this particular line of attack in the larger, institutional interest. Finally, there is the question of defamation and the media.

While it is surely undesirable to have any law that may chill free speech and cause politicians to unnecessarily censor themselves, there is surely a case to be made that abuse is rampant and defamation laws need to be closely studied and strengthened appropriately.

Published in Dawn, July 26th, 2014