29/11/2025
In the ongoing debate surrounding Justice Ali Baqar Najafi’s additional note in the Noor Mukadam judgment, much of the criticism has overlooked a crucial truth: a judge is not only an interpreter of law but also a guardian of societal values shaped by our constitutional and Islamic framework.
Justice Najafi’s observations on “live-in relationships” were not meant to blame the victim they were a contextual reminder that Pakistan’s legal system is anchored in the Objectives Resolution, Article 227 of the Constitution, and the foundational principle that no law can be repugnant to the injunctions of Islam.
From an Islamic jurisprudential standpoint, relationships outside the legally recognised bond of nikah have always been discouraged due to the social, moral and psychological vulnerabilities they create. Justice Najafi simply reiterated that when societal norms are consistently eroded, the consequences often manifest in painful and tragic forms, as seen in this case.Legally too, courts across the world including in South Asia often comment on broader social trends when those trends intersect with patterns of crime, safety, and public morality. Such obiter remarks are not unusual; they serve as warnings to policymakers and society at large.
It is entirely possible to condemn the brutality inflicted on Noor Mukadam and simultaneously acknowledge that the judge’s note sought to address a real, emerging moral vacuum in elite urban society. His concern was preventive, not punitive a caution grounded in constitutional morality and Islamic ethical structure.
At a time when our courts are constantly criticised for being detached from societal realities, Justice Najafi’s willingness to speak about the moral dimensions influencing criminal vulnerability should be appreciated, not demonised.
Instead of attacking the judge, perhaps we need to reflect on the deeper question he raised:
What happens to a society when its ethical anchors are removed and who ultimately pays the price?