November 27, 2025
By Rehan Piracha
LAHORE
Supreme Court Justice Ali Baqir Najafi’s observation about ‘living relationships’ in his additional note while rejecting the appeal of convict Zahir Jaffer in the Noor Mukadam murder case, has drawn strong reactions from activists and lawyers working for women’s rights.
In the final section of his seven-page note, Justice Najafi wrote that the murder case was “a direct result of a vice spreading in the upper society,” which he described as the concept of a “living relationship.” He stated that such arrangements defy “the law of the land” as well as Islamic teachings. He added that the younger generation should take lessons from the consequences seen in this case and that the matter was one for social reformers to examine.
Noor Mukadam, 27, was murdered on 20 July 2021 in Islamabad. The trial court sentenced Jaffer to death in 2022, and the Islamabad High Court the verdict in 2023. The Supreme Court’s recent decision, along with Justice Najafi’s additional note, leaves Jaffer’s murder conviction and death sentence intact, pending the k of his review petition.
‘Will consult with Noor’s family to expunge remarks’
Speaking with Voicepk, Shah Khawar, the counsel for Shaukat Ali Mukadam—the plaintiff in the Noor Mukadam murder case and Noor Mukadam’s father—said that the additional note from the Supreme Court judge had hurt the sentiments of his client.
Shah Khawar questioned why the judge referenced Zahir Jaffer’s Section 342 statement—in which Jaffer claimed he was in a live-in relationship with Noor Mukadam—when courts from the trial level to the Supreme Court had already declared it false. He explained that courts either accept such statements as correct, granting relief to the accused, or declare them false and impose punishment. Since Jaffer received the death sentence, his statement was clearly rejected.
Khawar added that he would consult with his client about potentially seeking to have the observation expunged from the judgment through the pending review petition.
Khawar Mumtaz, former head of the National Commission on the Status of Women, criticised the judge’s comments, stating that judges should focus on the facts of the case and the crime committed, rather than perpetuating misogynistic views. “A judge should be looking at the details and facts of a case and judging on the crime committed rather than making a commentary that is embedded in misogynistic thought,” she told Voicepk.
Mumtaz said the tendency to victim-blame has to end and the judges have to stop using victim blaming as a reason for justification for murder.
Judge’s observations reflective of deep-seated patriarchal biases: Bari
Women’s rights activist and academic Farzana Bari strongly criticized the judge’s observations, calling them inappropriate and reflective of deep-seated patriarchal biases within Pakistan’s judiciary. “In my opinion, this is a very unnecessary and inappropriate comment. It is absolutely not the job of any judge to make such moral commentary and pass such moral judgment, because according to whatever law exists, a crime has occurred and announcing its punishment is the judge’s responsibility. But any kind of moral commentary beyond that is, in my view, completely inappropriate,” she told Voicepk.
Bari argued that the remarks expose systemic gender bias within the judicial system. “In my opinion, this is merely a reflection of the patriarchal mindset found among our judges,” she said. “I also feel that the judge is assuming they were in a relationship. Meaning, if a girl and boy meet each other, you assume there must be some sexual relationship between them. As if a woman and man cannot have any other relationship—neither friendship nor professional. If they are meeting, then they must be in a relationship.”
She questioned the judge’s assumption regarding the nature of the relationship between the individuals involved in the case. “How has the judge made this comment and established this assumption that the relationship between Noor and Zahir was a live-in relationship?” Bari asked.
Challenging the notion that relationship status contributes to violence, Bari emphasized that violence against women stems from deeper structural issues. “Those who live in marital relationships—there is also domestic violence within homes. The violence that occurs against women, these are not its reasons,” she explained. “The real reasons are: male control, men’s inability to accept a woman’s refusal, and their desire to control her sexuality. The patriarchy and misogyny—these are the reasons for such things,” Bari stated firmly.
Addressing broader systemic issues, Bari highlighted the absence of proper training for judges on gender issues. “From the outset, our judiciary has many patriarchal biases. Our judges have not received proper training. I believe our judiciary has not been trained in gender sensitization, and our judges sit there with the same patriarchal mindset,” she said. “This is why the conviction rate in gender-based violence cases is close to zero. This is why women do not have the confidence to report their cases or go to courts, believing they will receive justice there.”
She warned that such judicial comments would further discourage women from seeking justice. “This problem already exists, and now when such comments come, they will discourage women even more from seeking justice from the judiciary,” she observed.
Bari noted that this is not an isolated incident, citing the infamous Mukhtaran Mai case as another example of problematic judicial attitudes. “This is not the first incident. I remember that in Mukhtaran Mai’s case as well, there was a judge’s remark. Because in Mukhtaran Mai’s case, where gang rape occurred, there were two brothers who raped her. At that time too, the judge’s comment was ‘how can this be’—meaning he was suggesting to Mukhtaran Mai as if she was lying,” Bari recalled.
Bari called for systemic reforms. “These assumptions reflect the lack of gender sensitization in our judiciary and what kind of decisions are being made. This should be made part of judges’ performance assessment,” she stated.
Chief Justice should strike down remarks from verdict: Mallah
Academic and activist Arfana Mallah called the judge’s remarks biased and unjustified. She questioned the legal basis of Justice Najafi’s observations. “The question is, on what legal grounds did the judge write that the murder occurred because of a living relationship?” she asked. “First of all, a judge must cite the law and make decisions based on legal premises. Their personal opinion holds no significance.”
Mallah argued that such observations have no place in a court judgment. “It is not justified at all that such a biased observation be written in the verdict,” she stated. “I believe that this is completely inappropriate and unjustified on the part of Justice Ali Baqir Najafi, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should strike these remarks from the judgment, because these remarks are not based on any law, and a judge’s personal opinion should not supersede the law.”
The academic further characterized the remarks as victim-blaming, pointing to broader systemic issues within the judiciary. “This is complete victim blaming,” Mallah said. “This has been the attitude of the judiciary all along, which is why the rape reporting rate in Pakistan is among the lowest. Gender-based violence cases are not even reported because, at the end of the day, if a Supreme Court judge is so biased, then you can imagine what the situation would be in the lower judiciary.”
Mallah expressed dismay at the level of bias displayed. “It is regrettable that a Supreme Court judge holds such a biased attitude. Wasn’t the entire blame placed on the woman for going to stay with him?” she questioned.
She concluded by linking these judicial attitudes to the broader challenges women face in seeking justice. “From this, you can gauge how biased the judiciary is as an institution regarding women’s rights, how influenced it is by patriarchal thinking, and how it engages in victim blaming,” Mallah said. “And this is the very reason why very few women in Pakistan seek help from the judiciary or step forward to stand up for their rights.”
‘Observations amounted to moral policing and victim blaming’
Lawyer Reema Omer said the observations amounted to moral policing and blamed the victim of a horrific crime. “Women are murdered and assaulted in their homes, in their places of work, on the streets, in schools and colleges. Perpetrators are their husbands, family members, in-laws, teachers, colleagues, strangers. To argue that ‘such cases’ are a ‘direct result’ of a specific kind of relationship also shows extreme ignorance,” Omer wrote on her handle on platform X.
Activist Leena Ghani questioned a justice system that focuses on the victim’s actions rather than the perpetrator’s motives. “A judge upheld a murderer’s sentence and still found a way to blame the victim. Noor didn’t just die at the hands of a man. She was betrayed by a system that asks why she was there, not why he killed her. Even in death, women must prove they were ‘good enough’ to be mourned,” Ghani said on platform X.
Barrister Rida Hosain said the judge’s remarks in the Noor Mukadam case are disturbing, attributing the murder to the “vice” of “living relationships.” “A judge must uphold the law, not deliver moral lectures in a case where a woman was brutally murdered,” she wrote on X.
Salahuddin Ahmed, former president of Sindh High Court Bar Association, said murder and beheading are unacceptable, regardless of the circumstances—including consensual relationships. He said judges should focus on justice, not use such tragic cases to sermonize on societal norms or the victim’s character.
“I’ve no hesitation at all in saying people shouldn’t be murdered and beheaded even if they choose to have ‘live in’ relationships. And that judges should not use cases of heinous murder as a platform to give lectures on societal mores or the victim’s morality,” he wrote in his reply to a comment on X.
The lawyers’ and activists’ comments have reignited debate about the need for comprehensive gender sensitization training within Pakistan’s judicial system and the impact of patriarchal attitudes on justice delivery in gender-based violence cases.