Activists outraged as SC judge criticizes ‘live-in relationship’ in Noor Mukadam case

The decision by the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) to uphold the death sentence of Zahir Jaffer for the 2021 murder of Noor Mukadam, a verdict delivered on 20 May 2025, was meant to bring closure to a crime that shocked the nation. But an additional note released recently by one of the judges, Ali Baqar Najafi, has reignited public outrage.

In it, Justice Najafi maintained his support for the verdict, while also describing Noor and Zahir’s so-called “live-in relationship” as a social vice, arguing that such arrangements “defy not only the law of the land but also the personal law” under Sharia, calling them a “direct revolt” against God.

He warned young people about the “horrible consequences” of such ties and urged social reformers to take note.

In the original 2025 ruling, SC had confirmed Jaffer’s death penalty for murder (Section 302 PPC), commuted his death sentence for rape to life imprisonment, and reduced his kidnapping conviction from 10 years to one year. The bench, headed by Hashim Kakar and comprising Najafi and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, also released Jaffer’s former staff members (watchman and gardener), ruling that time already served was sufficient. 

Najafi’s moral framing of the case has triggered sharp backlash across social media, with critics condemning the judge’s remarks as deeply misguided and legally irrelevant. 

Senior journalist Mariana Baabar challenged the notion that a “living relationship” could justify or somehow explain beheading, asking: “Does Islam allow beheading of na-mahram?” Similarly, researcher Fauzia Yazdani argued that regardless of any moral judgments, the core issue was “murder,” a crime in itself, not a matter for character-certification based on personal relationships.

Defenders of judicial restraint emphasise that courts should focus solely on evidence and the gravity of crimes, not on policing lifestyle choices, particularly when those choices appear nowhere in the charges. 

As the conversation reopens on social media and in public forums, many are warning that such comments risk shifting blame from perpetrators to victims, undermining trust in the justice system’s impartiality.

Still, even with widespread resentment, the legal verdict remains unchanged, but its social aftershocks might outlast courtroom proceedings.