Women Rights in Pakistan: Supreme Court Judgment Against Illegal Jirgas and Panchayats

In many homes, villages and communities of Pakistan, a woman’s fight for justice does not begin with a lawyer, a court notice or a written petition. It begins with fear. Fear of family pressure. Fear of society. Fear of being told that her voice is not needed because men will decide everything for her. A woman may have rights under the Constitution, but if she cannot reach a lawful court, if she cannot speak for herself, and if her life, dignity or property is decided in a private gathering, then those rights become weak in real life.

This is why women rights in Pakistan are not only about written laws. They are about access to justice. They are about equality before law. They are about the right of a woman to be personally heard when her future is being decided.

In PLD 2019 Supreme Court 218, titled National Commission on Status of Women through Chairperson and others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Law and Justice and others, the Supreme Court of Pakistan dealt with a powerful constitutional question: can jirgas, panchayats, councils of elders or similar informal bodies act like courts and decide civil or criminal disputes? The case was heard by Mian Saqib Nisar, Chief Justice, and Ijaz ul Ahsan, Justice, and the judgment was authored by Mian Saqib Nisar, Chief Justice.

The answer of the Supreme Court was clear: no private body can assume the jurisdiction of a court without lawful authority. This judgment is a landmark for women rights in Pakistan because it recognizes that informal justice systems often operate within patriarchal and feudal structures where women are rarely heard directly.

IRAC Judgment Summary
IRAC	Short Points
Issue	Whether jirgas, panchayats and councils of elders can legally decide civil or criminal matters, especially where women’s equality, dignity and access to justice are affected.
Rule	Articles 4, 8, 10-A, 25 and 175 of the Constitution protect lawful treatment, fair trial, equality before law and court jurisdiction; international commitments also require equal access to courts for women.
Analysis	The Supreme Court found that jirgas and panchayats, when acting as courts, follow no lawful procedure, often reinforce patriarchal customs, and may deny women personal hearing and equal protection of law.
Conclusion	Jirgas and panchayats cannot adjudicate civil or criminal disputes. They may only act as voluntary mediation or reconciliation forums in civil disputes, and women must be personally heard if their rights are involved.
Citation & Title	2019PLD218	National Commission on Status of Women vs Government of Pakistan

Women Rights in Pakistan and the Real Question Before the Supreme Court

The real question before the Supreme Court was not whether people can sit together to settle a simple civil dispute. Peaceful settlement is not illegal if it is voluntary, lawful and fair.

The real question was different: can a private gathering become a court? Can elders decide a criminal case? Can a panchayat punish someone? Can a jirga decide a woman’s marriage, property, liberty or dignity without giving her the protections of law?

The petitioners, including the National Commission on Status of Women, argued that informal parallel systems were operating in tribal and rural areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan. These bodies were allegedly deciding family, civil, criminal and other matters, awarding punishments and executing decisions. The petitioners argued that such systems violated Articles 4, 8, 9, 10-A, 14, 25, 34 and 37 of the Constitution.

This issue is directly connected with women rights in Pakistan because women are often the first victims of pressure-based justice. When a woman is not present, not heard, or represented only through male relatives, her constitutional rights can be reduced to a formality.

Why This Case Matters for Pakistani Women

A woman’s right is not protected merely because the law recognizes it. A right becomes meaningful when a woman can enforce it.

If a woman has inheritance rights but cannot approach a court, her right is weak. If a woman has dignity but a jirga can humiliate her, her right is unsafe. If a woman has the right to marry with consent but a panchayat can force a decision, her freedom is only on paper.

This is the heart of women rights in Pakistan. The Supreme Court treated access to justice as both a right itself and a way to protect other rights. The Court recognized that when jirgas and panchayats operate as courts, they can become violators of due process and human rights rather than protectors of justice.

Petitioners’ Main Arguments

The petitioners argued that jirgas and panchayats deprive people of life, liberty, justice, equal protection of law and the right to be treated according to law.

They also argued that these informal bodies reinforce unfair social norms. According to the petitioners, such gatherings are usually dominated by notable elderly men of a village or tribe. Women are rarely seen in these forums, and if a woman is involved in a dispute, she is usually represented by male relatives. This, the petitioners argued, violates due process and equality under Articles 10-A and 25 of the Constitution.

The petitioners further highlighted harmful practices such as honor killings, vanni, swara and karo kari. The State representatives also accepted that these practices are violative of women’s fundamental rights and basic human rights.

For ordinary readers, the message is simple: no local custom can take away a woman’s right to be heard.

What the Supreme Court Said About Jirgas and Panchayats

The Supreme Court made an important distinction. It did not say that every village meeting is automatically illegal. It clarified that the terms jirga or panchayat may sometimes refer to a gathering of elders for negotiation, mediation or reconciliation. Such a gathering may be permissible within the limits of law if it deals with a civil dispute and all parties willingly consent.

But the Court drew a hard line: when these bodies act as courts, they become illegal.

A jirga cannot decide a criminal case. A panchayat cannot punish a person. A council of elders cannot issue binding orders about life, liberty, body, reputation or property. It cannot decide a woman’s rights without lawful authority.

The Court held that jirgas and panchayats, to the extent they attempt to adjudicate civil or criminal matters, do not operate under the Constitution or any other law.

This ruling is a major protection for women rights in Pakistan because it stops informal bodies from hiding behind tradition while violating constitutional guarantees.

Women Rights in Pakistan, Article 25 and Equality Before Law

Article 25 of the Constitution says all citizens are equal before law and entitled to equal protection of law. It also says there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex.

For further reading, you can read the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on the official National Assembly of Pakistan website.

This is the constitutional foundation of women rights in Pakistan. It means a woman is not a lesser citizen. Her legal identity does not depend on her father, husband, brother or son. She has her own right to approach court, present her case and receive equal protection.

The Supreme Court noted that women have negligible representation before jirgas and panchayats. These forums often mirror patriarchal, feudal and tribal structures. If such a forum decides a woman’s right while she remains absent or unheard, then equality becomes meaningless.

A woman’s right cannot be protected through silence. It must be protected through hearing, dignity and law.

Article 4: Right to Be Treated According to Law

Article 4 gives every person the right to enjoy protection of law and to be treated according to law. It also protects a person from any action harmful to life, liberty, body, reputation or property except in accordance with law.

This article is extremely important for public awareness. If a woman is forced to accept a decision of a jirga, if her property is taken, if her marriage is decided, or if her dignity is harmed, the question is not what the elders decided. The real question is: was she treated according to law?

The Supreme Court emphasized that Article 4 protects citizens wherever they may be, and even protects non-citizens while they are in Pakistan. This shows how deeply the Constitution values legal protection.

For women rights in Pakistan, Article 4 means that a woman cannot be compelled to do what the law does not require and cannot be stopped from doing what the law does not prohibit.

Article 10-A: Fair Trial and Due Process

Article 10-A guarantees fair trial and due process for determination of civil rights and criminal charges.

This is where informal justice systems fail badly. A lawful court follows procedure. It hears both sides. It examines evidence. It is guided by law. Its decision can be tested through legal remedies.

A jirga or panchayat, when acting as a court, may follow no proper procedure. It may rely on hearsay, personal influence, local pressure, status and custom. The Supreme Court referred to the danger that such bodies do not follow precedent, predictability or certainty. They may decide serious matters without legal and codal formalities.

This is why women rights in Pakistan need lawful courts. Without fair trial, a woman’s right can be negotiated away before she ever gets the chance to speak.

Article 8: Custom Cannot Defeat Fundamental Rights

One of the strongest points in this judgment is the role of Article 8. Article 8 says that any law, custom or usage having the force of law is void to the extent it is inconsistent with fundamental rights.

This is a powerful message for society. Many times women are told, “Ye hamara riwaj hai.” But if a custom violates fundamental rights, then it cannot stand above the Constitution.

A custom cannot justify forced marriage. A custom cannot justify honor killing. A custom cannot justify depriving a woman of property. A custom cannot justify silencing a woman when her rights are involved.

The Supreme Court specifically observed that honor killings for the patriarchal concept of honor and compelling women to marry without consent as a means of settling disputes are hit by Articles 4, 10-A and 25 read with Article 8.

This is one of the most important protections for women rights in Pakistan.

International Law: Universal Declaration, International Covenant and CEDAW

The Supreme Court also discussed Pakistan’s international commitments. It referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

The Court noted that these instruments require equal protection of law, effective legal remedy, and women’s equality before law. Article 15 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women requires women to have equality with men before law, identical legal capacity in civil matters, and equal treatment in all stages of procedure in courts and tribunals.

This strengthens women rights in Pakistan because it shows that women’s access to courts is not only a local legal issue. It is also part of Pakistan’s constitutional and international responsibility.

Why Jirgas and Panchayats Can Harm Women

Jirgas and panchayats may appear quick, cheap and local. But when they act as courts, they can become extremely dangerous.

They may not record evidence properly. They may not hear both sides fairly. They may not allow women to speak. They may treat family honor as more important than individual rights. They may put pressure on weaker people. They may impose decisions that no lawful court would accept.

The Supreme Court noted that such bodies often preserve unfair social structures in rural areas where the word of influential persons is treated as law and imposed on socially and financially weaker parties.

This is why the judgment is so important for women rights in Pakistan. It protects women from being reduced to objects of settlement.

A Woman Cannot Be Replaced by a Male Relative

This is perhaps the most human part of the judgment.

The Supreme Court held that even where arbitration, mediation or reconciliation is allowed in civil disputes, if women’s rights are involved, representation of women cannot be through a male kin, and they must be allowed an opportunity of personal hearing if they so desire.

This principle should be understood by every family in Pakistan.

A woman’s brother cannot automatically speak for her. Her father cannot automatically settle her rights. Her husband cannot erase her independent legal voice. If her rights are involved, she must be heard.

This is not just procedure. This is dignity.

FATA Interim Governance Regulation 2018

The connected matter involved the FATA Interim Governance Regulation 2018. After the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas were merged into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Supreme Court held that after merger, residents of former FATA could not be treated differently from the rest of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa without rational basis.

The Court declared the FATA Interim Governance Regulation 2018 ultra vires on the touchstone of Articles 4, 8, 25, 175 and 203 of the Constitution. The Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was granted six months to develop infrastructure for a uniform system of courts of ordinary jurisdiction.

This part is broader than women’s rights alone, but it supports the same constitutional principle: justice must be equal, lawful and accessible.

Final Decision and Directions of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court disposed of the Constitution Petition. It held that no individual or group of persons, in the name of jirga, panchayat or any other name, can assume the jurisdiction of a civil or criminal court without lawful authority.

The Court stated that any order, decision or direction issued by such persons is illegal and against the spirit of the Constitution. Jirgas and panchayats may operate only within lawful limits as voluntary arbitration, mediation, negotiation or reconciliation forums in civil disputes.

The Court also directed that where complaints are received about danger to life, liberty or property due to jirga or panchayat decisions, police should take immediate action, verify the complaint and proceed against those involved in convening, operating or aiding execution of such decisions. It also emphasized public awareness, stronger police response, complaint centres, and the role of media and non-profit organizations in promoting rule of law.

Important Legal Principles from This Judgment
Legal Principle	Simple Explanation
Jirgas cannot act as courts	No private body can decide civil or criminal cases without lawful authority.
Women must be personally heard	If women’s rights are involved, male relatives cannot automatically replace their voice.
Access to justice is a basic right	Courts protect life, liberty, dignity, property and equality.
Custom cannot override the Constitution	Any custom against fundamental rights is void to that extent.
Article 25 protects women	Women are equal before law and cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex.
Fair trial is necessary	Civil rights and criminal charges must be decided through due process.
Mediation is limited	Informal settlement may be allowed only in civil disputes with willing consent.
Police must act	Law enforcement must respond to threats arising from illegal jirga decisions.

Public Impact: Why Every Citizen Should Know This Judgment

This judgment is not only for lawyers. It is for every citizen, every family, every village and every woman who has been told that she must accept what elders decide.

It teaches that justice cannot be private power. Justice must be lawful. It teaches that women cannot be silenced in the name of tradition. It teaches that weak citizens must not be left at the mercy of powerful local structures.

For women rights in Pakistan, this case gives a clear legal message: a woman’s dignity, property, liberty and voice are protected by the Constitution.

A woman may be poor. She may be from a rural area. She may not know legal language. But her lack of legal awareness does not justify the deprivation of her rights. The Supreme Court recognized that it is the duty of the State to be vigilant for the protection of citizens whose rights it is obligated to protect.

Practical Lessons for Families and Women

If a woman’s property, marriage, inheritance, custody, dignity or liberty is involved, she should be personally heard.

If a jirga or panchayat gives a decision in a criminal matter, that decision has no lawful authority.

If a civil dispute is settled through mediation, consent must be free, voluntary and lawful.

If a woman is forced into compromise, that compromise may be challenged before a lawful forum.

If a person faces danger because of a jirga or panchayat decision, police protection and court remedy may be available.

If a custom violates fundamental rights, it cannot defeat the Constitution.

Women Rights in Pakistan and Access to Justice After This Judgment

The strongest message of this case is that women rights in Pakistan cannot survive without access to justice. A woman needs more than sympathy. She needs courts. She needs fair hearing. She needs equal protection. She needs freedom from pressure-based decisions.

The Supreme Court did not attack lawful reconciliation. It attacked unlawful adjudication. It did not reject social peace. It rejected private bodies acting as courts. It did not merely discuss women’s rights in theory. It protected the right of women to be heard when their rights are involved.

This judgment should be remembered whenever someone says that local custom is above law. It is not. The Constitution is above custom. Courts are above private councils. Rights are above pressure.

Conclusion

PLD 2019 Supreme Court 218 is a landmark judgment on women rights in Pakistan, access to justice and the illegality of parallel court systems.

The judgment tells us that no jirga, panchayat, council of elders or private gathering can take the place of a lawful court. It tells us that a woman cannot be treated as a silent subject of family or community decisions. It tells us that when a woman’s rights are involved, her own voice matters.

This case is powerful because it connects law with real life. It recognizes that written rights are not enough if women cannot use them. It recognizes that society cannot protect dignity by silencing women. It recognizes that justice must be lawful, equal and accessible.

For every woman who has been pressured to remain quiet, this judgment says: the Constitution hears you.

For every family that believes custom is stronger than law, this judgment says: fundamental rights cannot be defeated by custom.

For every citizen who wants Pakistan to become a society of justice, this judgment says: rule of law must stand above private power.

Page Disclaimer

The content on Qanooni Dastak is for legal awareness and educational purposes only. It is not professional legal advice. For any personal legal matter, readers should consult a qualified lawyer.

For related legal awareness, you can also read our women harassment judgment blog explaining how Pakistani courts protect women’s dignity and workplace rights.

FAQs About Women Rights in Pakistan