The Supreme Court of Pakistan has issued a stark warning against the rising tide of gender-based violence, declaring that women exercising their lawful rights cannot be targeted with impunity. The bench, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, emphasized that the state’s failure to protect women under the guise of “tradition” or “social norms” is a direct violation of the Constitution.
The court’s remarks came during the hearing of a petition concerning the harassment and physical assault of women in rural areas. Justice Isa was particularly blunt, questioning why local administrations often look the other way when women are attacked for exercising their fundamental rights—whether it is the right to property, the right to choose a life partner, or simply the right to public movement.
“The law does not distinguish between a man’s right and a woman’s right,” the Chief Justice noted. He pointedly asked the provincial law officers why police stations in several districts remain hesitant to register First Information Reports (FIRs) when the perpetrators are influential figures or community elders.
For years, the “jirga” system and local power structures have operated as shadow courts, often silencing victims before they reach a courtroom. This judicial intervention is a direct challenge to that parallel system. The Supreme Court made it clear: if a woman is exercising a right granted to her by the law, any violence used to stop her is a criminal act, not a private matter.
The bench ordered the Inspector Generals of Police in the provinces to ensure that no pressure—political or otherwise—prevents the registration of cases involving violence against women. The court also signaled that it would hold police officers personally accountable if they are found complicit in shielding attackers.
Critics have long argued that laws exist on paper but fail in practice due to a lack of political will. By linking the right to life and liberty directly to the state’s responsibility to prosecute, the Supreme Court is attempting to force a shift in how the police handle these cases.
The court’s stance is a message to lower courts and law enforcement alike: the time for “reconciliation” or “social mediation” in cases of violent assault is over. The law is the only arbiter, and the state, as the primary guarantor of rights, is now under formal notice to prove it can protect its citizens.
