Imagine a lawyer contesting an election who is sitting in Lahore, while at the same moment his address is being displayed in bar rooms in Karachi, Peshawar, and Quetta, making it appear as though he is physically present at each location. This is no longer a scene from a science-fiction film. It is now possible through hologram technology, which has recently attracted considerable attention in our neighbouring country, India.
A holographic show presents a three-dimensional-like image of a person on a stage, creating the impression that the individual is physically standing in front of the audience. It is often accompanied by the person’s original voice or a pre-recorded video. Initially, this technology was largely associated with music concerts, but it is now finding applications in other fields as well.
Two notable incidents involving hologram technology emerged in India in October 2026. The family of Punjabi singer Sidhu Moose Wala, who was murdered in 2022, launched a hologram concert tour titled Signed to God World Tour, beginning in Toronto, with plans to reach several countries, including Pakistan and India. In another incident, Prime Minister Narendra Modi interacted with an AI-generated hologram of Swami Chinmayananda, who passed away in 1993, and sought his blessings for future endeavours. While the first initiative introduced a new dimension to entertainment, the second sparked controversy and debate over the ethical use of AI to recreate the words and blessings of deceased personalities. (Madhyamam Online; The South First)
The question now arises: what does all this have to do with elections in our legal fraternity?
Candidates contesting elections for the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and various High Court Bar Associations have to travel to different cities across the country to meet voters personally. Such campaigns are not only exhausting but also expensive. According to Dawn, in last year’s SCBA election, a lead of approximately 200 votes from Lahore proved decisive. This demonstrates that every city’s vote matters and that candidates must make an effort to reach voters wherever they are.
In this context, hologram technology or live telepresence appears to offer an attractive alternative. A candidate could appear simultaneously in several cities, saving considerable travel time and expenses. It might also appeal to younger members of the legal fraternity, who are more receptive to modern technological approaches to campaigning.
However, there is another side to the picture. An opinion published in The Express Tribune suggests that personal relationships, campaigning skills, and group dynamics play a significant role in Bar elections. Lawyers want to shake hands with their colleagues, sit together in bar rooms, and communicate face to face. Can a hologram create the same level of confidence and trust? There is also the question of cost. If this technology proves expensive, only financially powerful groups may be able to afford it, potentially undermining equality and fairness in electoral competition. (The Express Tribune)
The most significant concern, however, relates to authenticity. In an era when deepfakes and AI-generated fabricated videos have become increasingly common, a candidate’s holographic appearance or artificially generated message could raise doubts in voters’ minds. They may begin to question whether what they are watching is genuine or digitally manufactured. If Bar Associations intend to permit such technology in election campaigns, they will need to establish clear rules and a proper code of conduct.
This debate will not remain confined to elections within the legal fraternity. If holographic campaigning becomes acceptable at the Bar level today, the same approach could eventually find its way into political and other elections. At that stage, the issue will no longer be merely about convenience; it will also concern trust, authenticity, and equal opportunities for all candidates.
Hologram technology can certainly bridge geographical distances, but can it also transfer the trust that is built through a personal meeting? Can the convenience of technology come at the cost of human interaction, which remains one of the foundations of our electoral traditions?
I leave these questions to the readers. The decision is yours.