I am again confused. Rather, I am still confused about all that has so far has happened, and that is being going on in Pakistan.

My confusion would have been removed, or at least reduced, had our media, utilising the space available to it now, not ever before, educated and enlightened me about the historical politics and political history of my beloved motherland.

But instead of that, our media prefers to leaving me at lurch, and keeping me confused by telling me, "We have given you both side of the story. Now it is up to you to decide." But, Sirs, I am not educated enough and knowledgeable enough to come to a decision on the issues! So, I ever remain confused.

I am again confused about the matters under considerations in the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).

All the legal experts, so far came before public, have clearly opined that SJC is not a court by any means. It has no standing or authority of that Supreme or High Courts, though all its proceedings would be in line with court proceedings (naturally!). The people, defending general musharraf's action, also say that it is not a court by itself, but again say between the line (to save themselves from embarrassment) the reference against the CJP is subjudice. What is the meaning and definition of the word 'subjudice'? If an issue is not before any court, can it be called "subjudice"? Here, I am not trying to be over-smart, but I really want to know - want to be educated about finer issues of law, particularly the 'subjudice' things. I want to get of this confusion cleared, and some knowledgeable persons must help me out in this respect.

I have another issue of confusion, and that is if there is anything in the Constitution, like freedom of expression, no body could go against that, even the courts. So, do the directives of the SJC given much earlier in days of confusion about not to comment on the issue of reference hold any good? And if anybody violates that directive, then can s/he be proceeded against? If so, then under which provision? Contempt of court? If the SJC is not a court, then how can these sorts directives be implemented, contempt of court can be initiated? After a lot of opinions by retired judges and legal experts, it was seemingly established that there can not be such directives which are devoid of applicability. But still some media people, who want to be on both side of the fence, and of course the hapless government people, often take the ploy that as it is SJC directive, so nothing could be said on the particular angle of the issue, under that directive; and the commenting stops there. The media presenters also become alert and stop further commenting and questioning. But I remain confused: can my constitutional right of listening to expert comments be truncated by 'unconstitutional' administrative directives of any body?

These may be very small issues. But to be enlightened about law, constitution, politics etc, some body should give me knowledge on such trivial issues also. And whatever is the fact and according to constitution should be cited and referred to in true spirit. This may not be asking for too much. Or is it?