When the Noor Mukadam vs Zahir Jaffer case finally reached a verdict, the world was watching. Or at least, every Pakistani was watching. The public interest in the case had been amplified by the fact that both individuals hailed from families that were so called influential players in the Pakistani social diaspora. This in itself, gave the story an ironically balanced (and fair?) chance to reach a just conclusion as either side couldn’t turn the courts in their favour, or, ensure an out-of-court settlement as is the case in many such judicial trials where the social disbalance between the opposing parties ensures that the lesser privileged party might never receive a free and fair verdict.
This is what the people of Pakistan have grown to expect, and hence, the balanced opposition, much like the warring of two political neighbours across a common border, each armed with a nuclear weapon, might ensure peace in the region. In this case unfortunately, Noor wasn’t that lucky, despite the ‘social clout,’ justice for her meant serving the cause of many others who await theirs. But a skewed sentence – one that favoured the perpetrator (yes, the people’s verdict was in due to a series of damning evidence), would mean a precedence that set yet another benchmark in a history of benchmarks that served the societal bias on victim blaming, misogyny, femicide, gender bias, and hence, a long, arduous uphill walk for all those women who battle abuse every day of their lives. Some, in fact very few escape it while others might be about to meet their death, even as we write this. The statistics, not us, speak for themselves.
Recent studies have disclosed that:
Over 2,000 cases of domestic violence, 500 cases of honor killings, and 5,000 cases of rape were reported across Pakistan in 2024. Conviction rates were below 2 percent. (The Diplomat)
These women, or young girls, or even children, might not be in a live-in relationship, or risking the honour, God forbid, (sarcasm intended), of their husband, brother or father – they were just human beings belonging to the female gender.
According to a report titled “Mapping Gender-Based Violence in Pakistan” by the Sustainable Social Development Organization (SSDO), in 2024, over 24,000 cases of abductions and kidnappings were reported across Pakistan, ranking as one of the highest reported kinds of gender-based violence. On average, 67 cases were reported daily. However, the conviction rate in such cases was a dismal 0.1 percent.
Furthermore, The Istanbul Convention, a benchmark international legislation to protect women, frames violence against women as “a form of gender-based violence that is committed against women, because they are women.” It further states that it is the obligation of the state to prosecute the perpetrators of such crimes, and if the state institutions turn a blind eye, there can be no real equality and justice.
So, when news and evidence of the Noor Mukadam vs Zahir Jaffer case was revealed, claiming the victim, a young girl aged 27 years, was found murdered at Zahir’s Islamabad residence in July 2021, with the probe revealing she was tortured before being beheaded, Zahir was arrested as the prime suspect in the case. Islamabad Supreme Court in Pakistan, citing that mental illness as a defence for pre-meditated crime cannot be employed to sway the court verdict in the perpetrator’s favour.
But even as netizens rejoiced in the verdict, a rare one in a country littered with patriarchy taking precedence over justice, with unresolved rape cases, despite the international spotlight some of them receive (Mukhtaran Mai being a prime example where the survivor was subject to gang rape and assault, but on the orders of a village council, many of the accused were freed by Pakistan’s supreme court.) (Guardian)
And she lives to tell the tale.
But have we come a long way from the days of Mukhtara Mai. Or is the Noor Mukadam verdict a drop in the ocean in a sea of verdicts that looked the other way.
Here’s what happened in the course of events from 2021 to 2025:
The death sentence of Zahir Jaffer, belonging to an influential family who had allegedly tortured and raped the victim Noor Mukadam in broad daylight, with incriminating CCTV footage, was upheld. Zahir could not save himself despite the influence he and his family purportedly wielded in Pakistan.
The ruling established that even in privilege, the courts will uphold justice and hand out a sentence that serves justice and punishes the culprit. Correct?
Or… is this verdict a mere anomaly, not a precedence, as Noor Mukadam’s father, a former Pakistani diplomat could exercise an equal and sizeable influence against Zahir Jaffer’s family and hence, the outcome and court verdict meant that it was hard to twist the arm of justice, or disbalance the scales so that one side could exert undue pressure on the courts.
Was it then, public pressure, trending hashtags and the social media trends that drove the courts to pursue justice or, was it merely that the world was watching a case where both players were the big sharks in a game where justice had to win because the world was tuned in? Well, the world was watching with Mukhtaran Mai, the world was also watching in several other ‘hit and run’ and abduction cases where trending hashtags and ‘justice for’ gained traction, the “Motorway Incident” and others to quote a few.
What did happen as the nation rejoiced the verdict, was that a deep-rooted misogyny, moral policing and a mindset that leans towards victim blaming, still found a place to be heard. When netizens or X users debate over women and their supposed life choices, it is a personal debate that lingers in our online patriarchal circles. We engage in heated conversations, spend hours tweeting, retweeting and spending our emotions on fending off misogynistic remarks but note this, when the same judgements are passed by individuals who uphold our judiciary, and who sit in reverent positions, with a responsibility to pronounce fair and unbiased verdicts, we wonder if Noor Mukadam really won the case all over Pakistan or, are we still living in la la land as so many more women who might not have the same support systems, are left with no choice but to take back their reported case and become the many in a long line of ‘no convictions.’
While Noor’s ordeal was intensely painful, and one might argue that no woman, no matter how privileged, is spared when it comes to misogyny, femicide and gender bias, one also argues if the people who are handing out the verdict truly believe in the judgement they pass.
When, during the Supreme court hearing, Justice Najafi remarked on the need for societal awareness, stressing that the state should sensitise the young generation about the perils of “living-in relationships”, which he described as a source of societal decay, one wonders if the same judge is aware that the majority of cases involving female abduction, torture, abuse, rape and murder are committed by men who might be the brothers, sons, fathers or husbands of the victim. And that a man who tortures, and cuts into pieces, also beheading his victim, is ‘no excuses guilty’, regardless of the relationship he was in with the victim. By mentioning a live-in relationship while debating the same heinous crime, by victim blaming Noor Mukadam, a member of the judiciary has not only undermined the black and white nature of the court ruling but clubbed a mindset associated with our society that we have tried very hard to separate.
Female abduction, abuse, torture, rape, and murder are not punishment for a woman’s lifestyle choices or actions.
Perhaps sticking to the verdict and the incriminating evidence put forward would have served the cause of justice better than resorting to a valued judgement on the victim’s reasons for being in Zahir’s home. Just like the infamous Motorway incident when a senior police official had commented why the rape survivor in question was driving on the Motorway late in the night, thinking Pakistan is as safe as France.
Finally, a last thought on the Noor Mukadam verdict which was awaited with bated breath by the entire nation. The courts dismissed a mental health plea by Zahir Jaffer’s lawyers, citing that the plea had not been filed earlier, but towards the end of the trial without earlier reference to mental health history or supporting documents.
The courts, like us, believed Zahir Jaffer to be ‘pulling a fast one’, to resorting to a desperate attempt to escape the death sentence. Should the courts and the public react in the same manner to a legal request by the defendant? The public had already given its verdict a few years ago, but the court was still following the writ of the law, else it would have pronounced the verdict as fast as the public. Was the defendant then, well within his rights to ask for a mental health evaluation?
Let it be known that this case has pulled in quite the media interest and not only was the ordinary Pakistani citizen hanging on every update from the courts, but the verdict also set a precedent as to how future such cases will be tried. Without resorting to legal terminology, but merely as a layperson following the case, one wonders, what if…
What if in the future, there are perpetrators in entirely different circumstances? In the Noor Mukadam case, the evidence was damning enough, as mentioned above, but would it not have been in the court’s favour to invite a medical board to conduct a mental health evaluation (which was not done in the Zahir Jaffer case), to make sure it was a water-tight conviction?
A free and fair trial is the right of every individual. And the courts, while upholding a death sentence that served justice as is evident by the preceding trials, the mental health question mark remains. If the evidence was so strong against Zahir Jaffer, a mental health evaluation might have served as the final nail in the proverbial coffin, so to speak, and discouraged others from using this as an excuse for further litigation.
Finally, what if the courts had overturned the verdict? What if Jaffer had been set free, or an appeal granted, or he would have been deemed mentally unfit or unstable. What if the evidence against him was not strong enough to uphold the sentence?
This is the reality of countless women in Pakistan.
This is not just a what if? This is a reality that many women and families are living with today and will continue to live with in the future, until and unless, every case of femicide is treated as a standalone crime, regardless of the victim or perpetrator’s social standing, regardless of whether it was a live-in relationship or a morally questionable life choice by the victim and regardless of whether the perpetrator was mentally compromised – a free and fair trial and verdict is the right of every Noor Mukadam and every Zahir Jaffer in Pakistan.
So let us hope Noor’s family’s battle to gain justice was not all in vain and let us hope that the keepers of our justice system can serve justice independent of their personal views or morality-based rhetoric – the law is the law and justice for everyone must triumph over justice for just one – only time will tell if Noor Mukadam has won the battle for all the women who call out her name in victory.
And let’s hope she has.
