IN his additional note in Noor Mukadam’s case, Justice Ali Baqar Najafi wrote that the case is “a direct result of a vice spreading in the upper society which we know as living [sic] relationship … The young generation must note its horrible consequences such as in the present case which is also a topic for the social reformist, to discuss in their circles”. The order implies that if a victim conformed to a certain moral or societal expectation, the crime could have been avoided. The reasoning shifts the focus away from the perpetrator’s culpability and onto the victim’s character and choices. It perpetuates a culture in which women are held responsible for the violence inflicted upon them. Victims are expected to predict, prevent, and bear responsibility for the violence committed against them.
According to a report by the Sustainable Social Development Organisation, 32,617 cases of gender-based violence (GBV) were reported in 2024 including 2,238 incidents of domestic violence and 547 cases of ‘honour’ killings. Women are subjected to violence not because they deviate from ‘norms’, but often precisely within those conventional and domestic spaces — inside their homes and at the hands of family members. To claim that the crime is the result of ‘live-in’ or a specific kind of a relationship demonstrates ignorance and dangerously reinforces victim-blaming. Cases of GBV must not be converted into a moral discussion. Nor should a victim’s life be reduced to a cautionary tale for society. The presence of such a Supreme Court order signals to the entire judicial hierarchy that moral commentary in cases of GBV is acceptable when it should have no place in our legal system. Rather than rejecting narratives that justify violence, the same harmful logic is being embedded in an order.
In contrast, in 2021, in ‘Atif Zareef vs the State’, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah held: “A woman, whatever her sexual character or reputation may be, is entitled to equal protection of law. No one has the licence to invade her person … it is the accused who is on trial and not the victim.” Placed side by side, the difference in the two judgements is stark. One judgement uses a judicial order to blame a victim, the other dismantles those very prejudices. One judgement shifts respon-
sibility away from the perpetrator, the other makes it unmistakably clear that the victim is not on trial. One judgement reduces the victim to a moral lesson, the other reaffirms her right to dignity.
During the hearings of the case, similar remarks were reported in the press. However, the ‘remarks’ now form part of a judicial order. The order creates a hierarchy of victims; those deemed ‘deserving’ of sympathy and those who are deemed to have ‘brought it upon themselves’. In a country where there is already severe underreporting, the order may further lead to victims choosing silence over the risk of being blamed for the violence against them.
GBV cases mustn’t be converted into moral debates.
Justice Najafi is one of seven judges that has been appointed to the Federal Constitutional Court. In the post-27th Amendment constitutional order, the FCC has the final say on constitutional interpretation. The FCC can, through the stroke of a pen, undo well-settled jurisprudence. The 27th Amendment does not specify criteria for appointment of judges to the FCC. The first batch of judges essentially hold their position by virtue of the executive selecting them.
Prior to the destructive 26th and 27th amendments, Pakistan was to have its first female chief justice in 2030. Previously, on the basis of seniority, the most senior judge of the court would have taken oath as chief justice and the executive had no say in the process. Under the bizarre new system, there are two chief justices: a chief justice of the FCC and a chief justice of the Supreme Court. Per the amendments, the FCC and SC chief justices are to be chosen by a parliamentary committee which shall have proportional representation based on the strength in parliament, and will select the chief justices from the three senior-most judges. Without government support in the committee, an eligible judge will not succeed in becoming chief justice of either court. Government approval has become a decisive factor in determining which judge becomes chief justice.
And with that, the once-certain prospect that Pakistan was on track to have its first female chief justice is no longer there. A previously guaranteed milestone has been made subject to the whims of political power. While representation alone cannot transform an institution, it remains an important advancement for women in the judiciary. Meaningful change requires strengthening institutions, not tearing them down. For far too long, unconscious bias against women has plagued our judicial system; the amendments entrench further injustice.
The writer is a barrister.
Published in Dawn, December 17th, 2025
