January 28, 2026
By Xari Jalil
LAHORE
The Lahore High Court (LHC) upheld a trial court order restraining singer and actress Meesha Shafi from making public statements related to her sexual harassment allegations against actor and singer Ali Zafar, until the final decision in the defamation suit filed by Zafar. At the same time, the court directed the trial court to conclude the long-pending case expeditiously, preferably within 30 days.
The decision was issued by Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad, who dismissed a petition filed by Meesha Shafi challenging an earlier order of the trial court dated January 24, 2019. That order had imposed a temporary injunction barring her from issuing statements connected to the subject matter of the defamation proceedings.
In his ruling, Justice Arshad held that the restriction imposed by the trial court was lawful, reasonable, and justified in the circumstances of the case. He observed that while freedom of expression is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and must be balanced against other constitutional protections, including the right to dignity and the right to a fair trial.
The court emphasised that the truth or falsity of the allegations levelled against Ali Zafar could not be determined without the proper recording of evidence. It noted that continued public commentary on a matter that is sub judice could lead to what the court described as a “parallel media trial,” which it said was neither permissible nor desirable in the interest of justice and fair adjudication.
Justice Arshad dismissed the contention raised by Shafi’s counsel that injunctions should not be granted in defamation cases. The judge ruled that there is no absolute legal prohibition on issuing interim injunctions in such matters and that courts retain the authority to impose temporary restraints in exceptional circumstances to prevent irreparable harm.
The written order noted that Meesha Shafi’s counsel had argued that injunctions in defamation cases should only be imposed in the rarest of situations. However, the judge found that the present case involved serious triable issues and that interim protection was warranted to preserve the rights of the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings.
Ali Zafar’s counsel, Rana Intizar, opposed Shafi’s petition and maintained that repeated public statements by the petitioner had caused irreparable damage to his client’s reputation. He argued that Zafar’s career and livelihood depended heavily on public trust and perception, and that the continued circulation of unproven allegations could not be adequately remedied through monetary compensation alone.
Accepting this argument, Justice Arshad observed that reputation, once harmed, could not be fully restored through damages. He held that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the injunction, particularly where the allegations, if ultimately found to be untrue, directly affected the respondent’s dignity, honour, and professional credibility.
The judge further noted that the material available on record prima facie showed that the defamation suit raised serious questions of fact that required adjudication through evidence. In such circumstances, he said, the respondent could not be left without protection while the case remained undecided.
On the other hand, the court held that Meesha Shafi would not suffer any irreparable prejudice by being temporarily restrained from making statements relating to the controversy until the matter was resolved on merit. The judge stressed that the restraint was limited in scope and duration, and was subject to the final outcome of the defamation suit.
Justice Arshad also rejected the argument that the gag order violated freedom of expression. He ruled that the right to free speech is subject to reasonable restrictions under the law and must be harmonised with the right to dignity. Citing established legal principles, including those laid down in Bonnard v. Perryman (1981), the judge held that an interim injunction restraining further statements was justified in the circumstances.
The court clarified that the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously by imposing a narrow restriction rather than a blanket prohibition. The injunction, as noted in the original trial court order, only restrains the defendant from making statements relevant to the controversy of the alleged defamation until the decision of the suit.
While dismissing Shafi’s petition, Justice Arshad also took note of the prolonged nature of the litigation. Observing that the case had reached the stage of final arguments, he directed the trial court to decide the main defamation suit expeditiously, preferably within 30 days.
Commenting on the act, lawyer Nida Aly, who is also Executive Director of the AGHS said that claims of sexual harassment were a serious issue.
“Gagging orders – as a matter of principle – in matters connected to sexual harassment complaints raise serious concerns,” she said. “The sexual harassment law is designed not only to provide redress but also to protect complainants from retaliation or coercive silencing by the accused. The use of legal processes in a manner that may suppress a complainant’s ability to speak—absent a clear, evidence-based justification—risks undermining both the spirit of these protections and fundamental due-process guarantees. Any such restriction must therefore be strictly necessary, proportionate, and demonstrably grounded in law and evidence.”
Meanwhile Meesha’s lawyer Saquib Jillani told Voicepk that the decision set a “dangerous precedent”.
“It sets a dangerous precedent against victims of sexual harassment as in this particular case, the High Court completely ignored the fact that Meesha had not just spoken about sexual harassment, but also filed a complaint against Ali Zafar before the Ombudsperson for protection of women against sexual harassment,” he said. “The judge ignored a long line of legal precedents which held that in defamation cases injunction can only be granted in exceptional circumstances.”
Meesha’s fellow petitioner in a separate case, Leena Ghani, says she is not worried about a change in narrative.
“This is not really a verdict change,” she said while speaking to Voicepk on the case. “The (other) cases are there. So this is not really shocking news – nor is it a win for Ali Zafar.”
Ghani added that the this gag order case had been ongoing since 2019.
“Since the case was subjudice, Meesha Shafi has not really said anything about Ali Zafar,” she said. “However since then, Ali Zafar has been going on and on talking about it in interviews giving his ‘side of the story’.
Ghani said that because Meesha had been unable to talk about the case in details because of the gag order case, it had prompted her to bring her own narrative out, which was similar to Meesha, just so the issue was not silenced.
“This is probably the only case they have that they keep bringing up, and because of this, we got stuck in the whole narrative and he had all the freedom to say whatever he could but Meesha Shafi couldn’t.”
The case details
The dispute between the two artists dates back to April 2018, when Meesha Shafi publicly accused Ali Zafar of sexual harassment. In response, Zafar filed a defamation suit through his counsel Rana Intizar, seeking Rs1 billion in damages and an unconditional apology from Shafi. He maintained that the allegations were baseless and had caused serious damage to his reputation, goodwill, and professional standing.
Zafar had also served a legal notice on Shafi, stating that her tweets dated April 19, 2018 were false, slanderous, and defamatory. According to the suit, Shafi failed to delete the posts or issue an apology within 14 days of receiving the notice, prompting Zafar to approach the court.
Alongside the defamation suit, Zafar sought an interim injunction to prevent Shafi from making further public statements on the matter. The trial court accepted his application and issued the gag order on January 24, 2019.
Shafi subsequently challenged the injunction before the Lahore High Court, which has now dismissed her plea. Earlier, in 2021, the Supreme Court had admitted Shafi’s petition against an LHC order for preliminary hearing. The apex court had remarked that the points raised by the petitioner required examination and had clubbed the matter with a suo motu case concerning the definition of sexual harassment, which remains pending. That hearing was adjourned for an indefinite period.
With Tuesday’s ruling, the LHC has reaffirmed the validity of the interim restraint and underscored the need for a swift resolution of the defamation proceedings, bringing renewed focus to a case that has remained in litigation for several years.