by Dr. Emanuel Adil Ghouri
Recently, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled in a case involving the marriage of a Christian girl to a Muslim boy and declared the marriage valid. This decision has caused deep disappointment among Pakistani Christians, who have launched nationwide protests to express their displeasure. Protests and press conferences are being held in cities large and small across the country, yet the Pakistani government has not responded—an unmistakable indication of its lack of interest in minority issues.
In this decision, the administration failed to fulfill its responsibility before the judiciary. Cases registered in matters of forced marriage, religious conversion, and underage marriage are generally weak, often including only kidnapping provisions, while violations of the Child Marriage Act are not made part of the FIR. As a result, kidnappers, matchmakers, and facilitators escape accountability, and such incidents continue to occur.
The Maria Shahbaz decision is not the first ruling influenced by religious bias within the Pakistani judiciary. Previously, various judges in different courts have issued similar decisions. Two things are evident in such rulings: first, the religious inclinations of the judges, and second, the pressure exerted by religious parties.
I recall clearly that on July 25, 2025, the Islamabad High Court ordered the Government of Pakistan to form a judicial commission to inquire into 700 pending blasphemy cases to determine how many were baseless. After this order, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro received serious threats, and security at the High Court had to be increased. Shortly afterward, five religious parties filed a petition to cancel the decision, and the order was suspended within a week.
Now we must fight—within the bounds of the constitution and the law, in both the streets and the courts—to protect our rights and honor. Two legal measures are urgently needed. First, a review petition should be filed against this decision. NGOs that receive millions of dollars from Europe and America in the name of persecution should allocate some of those funds to this real responsibility. I also urge Christian advocacy organizations to play their role.
The second important step—one we should have taken long ago—is to approach the relevant forum to take action against judges who issue decisions based on personal preferences, religious sentiments, or disregard for facts. Had we taken this step earlier, the Federal Constitutional Court’s biased decision might not have occurred.
The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) of Pakistan is a constitutional body established under Article 209 and tasked with ensuring accountability within the higher judiciary. It investigates allegations of misconduct, incompetence, or violations of the judicial code of conduct by Supreme Court and High Court judges and recommends their removal to the President. There are precedents for disciplinary action against judges. The SJC has historically been involved in politically charged cases, including the 2007 reference against Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, the removal of Justice Shaukat Siddiqui in 2018, and proceedings against Justice Mazhar Naqvi in 2024.
Important Historical Steps and Cases
- Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry case (2007): President Musharraf filed a reference against the Chief Justice, sparking a major lawyers’ movement and eventual reinstatement by the Supreme Court, highlighting tensions between the SJC and judicial independence.
- Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui (2018): Removed from the Islamabad High Court after alleging ISI interference in judicial matters.
- Syed Muhammad Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi (2024): Resigned, then was removed, after the SJC found him guilty of misconduct following allegations of amassing assets beyond known income.
- Farrukh Irfan Khan (2019): Resigned from the Lahore High Court after being implicated in the Panama Papers offshore company scandal.
Recent Developments
In 2024, six Islamabad High Court judges wrote to the SJC alleging threats from intelligence agencies. In 2025, the SJC approved an amendment to the code of conduct barring judges from discussing complaints in the media.
The two most senior judges of the Supreme Court and the two most senior chief justices of the high courts may initiate inquiries on their own or through a presidential reference. Many high-profile cases have been viewed as political, sometimes resulting in the resignation of judges.
Christian lawyers, NGOs, and church leaders have not approached the Supreme Judicial Council against any judge who has ruled in cases of forced marriage, conversion, or underage marriage where Christians have suffered injustice. As a result, such decisions have continued unchecked. Now is the time to approach the Supreme Judicial Council against the judges responsible for these rulings.
Leave a Reply