Mother’s Phoonkni and professor’s mic – are we still society?

According to FIR No. 5106/26 registered at Sadar Shakargarh Police Station, a 70-year-old woman was booked in a case in which a phoonkni—a traditional

LAHORE: Two separate FIRs involving a household fire-blower and a classroom microphone have raised questions about the use of criminal law in cases involving ordinary domestic and academic activities.

According to FIR No. 5106/26 registered at Sadar Shakargarh Police Station, a 70-year-old woman was booked in a case in which a phoonkni—a traditional metal or wooden implement used to blow air into a cooking fire—was allegedly cited as part of the circumstances leading to the case. The woman is reportedly the mother of a journalist who had written about matters concerning the authorities.

In another case, FIR No. 1481/26 was registered at Muslim Town Police Station in Lahore against four professors—Dr Sardar Asghar, Dr Kamran Abid, Dr Majid Ali and Dr Hafiz Mughis Bhatti—in connection with the use of a microphone during academic activities.

The professors, reportedly all aged above 50, have maintained that they had no previous criminal cases against them and questioned why the use of a microphone in an educational setting resulted in criminal proceedings.

The two cases have drawn attention because the objects at the centre of the allegations—a phoonkni used for cooking and a microphone used for teaching—are ordinarily associated with routine household and educational activities rather than criminal conduct.

The cases have also prompted concerns among members of civil society and the legal community about whether criminal proceedings are being invoked proportionately and whether the circumstances surrounding the FIRs require further examination by the relevant authorities.

The reported cases involving an elderly woman and senior academics have put the spotlight on the broader question of how ordinary citizens interact with law-enforcement institutions when routine activities become the subject of criminal proceedings.

The matter now awaits scrutiny by the relevant authorities, including the Punjab government and the judiciary, to determine the circumstances in which the FIRs were registered and whether the allegations meet the applicable legal requirements.

At their core, the two cases raise a fundamental question: when ordinary objects used in a kitchen or classroom become part of criminal proceedings, where should the line be drawn between legitimate law enforcement and the protection of citizens from unnecessary criminalisation?