Barrister Usman Ali, Ph.D.
Pakistan’s judicial history includes controversial decisions, yet it also contains several important precedents that have strengthened the rule of law, protected the Constitution, and promoted fundamental rights. The judiciary has not limited itself to political matters; it has also provided principled guidance in areas such as education, healthcare, environmental protection, women’s and children’s rights, labor issues, and consumer protection. Through such decisions, courts have attempted not only to keep state institutions within constitutional limits but also to protect the rights of ordinary citizens.
In interpreting fundamental rights, the Supreme Court has often adopted a broad and progressive approach. The “right to life” has been understood not merely as physical survival, but as the right to live with dignity, in a clean environment, with healthy conditions and equal opportunities. Similarly, judgments concerning women, minorities, and vulnerable groups have strengthened the idea of social justice and given legal recognition to those who are often ignored. Such decisions are important not only as legal precedents but also as moral and social guideposts for a more just society.
In this context, the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered a significant judgment in 2022 that resolved a 38-year-old inheritance dispute within a family and sent a strong message regarding the protection of women’s inheritance rights. A bench comprising Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Yahya Afridi made it clear that depriving women of their lawful and religious share in inheritance is contrary to Islamic principles, the Constitution of Pakistan, and basic justice.
The case concerned the distribution of property after the death of a father. The brother claimed that his father had transferred the property to him during his lifetime as a gift, known in Islamic law as hiba. On this basis, he retained possession of the property and denied his sisters their rightful inheritance.
The sisters challenged this claim in court and began a long legal struggle to obtain their share. This struggle did not last months or even a few years; it continued for nearly four decades. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, 38 years had passed. The case had already been heard by the lower courts and the Lahore High Court, where the decision had been given in favor of the sisters. The brother then challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.
The central question before the Court was whether the alleged gift had been validly made according to Islamic and legal requirements. The Court clarified that a mere claim is not enough to prove a gift. For a valid hiba, there must be clear evidence, acceptance, and an actual transfer of possession.
After reviewing the record, the Court found the alleged gift doubtful, particularly because the transfer was shown to have taken place on the very day the father died. The Court held that the burden of proving the gift lay on the person making the claim. In this case, the brother failed to produce reliable evidence showing that the father had genuinely transferred the property to him during his lifetime.
On that basis, the Supreme Court ruled that the alleged gift could not be legally accepted. The property was declared part of the deceased father’s estate and was to be distributed among all lawful heirs according to Islamic law. Since daughters are also legal heirs, the sisters were entitled to their rightful shares.
The most painful aspect of the case was that, out of the six sisters who had filed the claim, only two were alive when the final judgment was delivered. The others had passed away while waiting for justice. This fact exposes both the problem of judicial delay and the serious difficulties women often face when trying to secure their inheritance rights.
The Court also expressed concern that the brother had remained in possession of the property for a long period while other heirs were deprived of their shares. It made clear that women’s inheritance rights cannot be defeated through fabricated documents, doubtful claims, or delaying tactics.
This judgment was not merely the resolution of one family dispute; it highlighted a much larger social problem. In Pakistan, many women are still deprived of inheritance because of family pressure, social customs, fear, or legal manipulation. In some cases, sisters are pressured to give up their shares in the name of “consent.” In others, relatives use questionable documents to take control of property.
The Supreme Court firmly rejected such practices. It emphasized that women’s inheritance rights are not simply a matter of morality; they are religious, legal, and constitutional rights. Islamic law assigns fixed shares to men and women, and those rights arise after the death of the property owner. No heir has the authority to deprive another heir, especially a woman, of her lawful share.
The brother also argued that the sisters’ claim should be dismissed because of delay. The Court rejected this argument and held that technical objections cannot be allowed to defeat substantive justice, particularly where women’s lawful and religious rights are involved.
This judgment also reflects the judicial approach often associated with Justice Qazi Faez Isa. His decisions are generally marked by an emphasis on transparency, justice, and adherence to constitutional principles. In this case, too, the Court clearly rejected social and legal injustice against women and connected the law with the broader idea of social justice.
Viewed objectively, Justice Qazi Faez Isa deserves credit for an approach that does not remain confined to narrow legal formalities. In this case, he gave priority to the true spirit of the Constitution and the law over personal interests, doubtful claims, and procedural technicalities. This is what makes the judgment both distinctive and effective.
Ultimately, justice was delivered after 38 years, but the case remains a painful reminder that delayed justice can become a form of denied justice, especially when the affected party is vulnerable. The decision stands as a strong precedent for courts and society alike.
Above all, it sends a clear message: a woman’s share in inheritance is not a concession, a favor, or an act of family generosity. It is her fundamental religious, legal, and constitutional right. If the principles of this judgment are sincerely implemented, they can strengthen women’s economic empowerment, dignity, and independence in Pakistan. The true importance of this decision lies in bringing law closer to social reality and affirming that real justice protects the rights of the vulnerable from the control of the powerful.
Leave a Reply