The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the death sentence for Zahir Jaffer in the brutal murder of Noor Mukadam has been severely overshadowed by an additional note from Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, which describes the case as the “direct result of a vice spreading in upper society which we know as ‘living relationship.'”
Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, who is now part of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), has observed that the Noor Mukadam case is the direct result of a “vice” spreading in society known as “living relationship,” it emerged on Wednesday.
Pak: Judge says murder of woman in live-in was due to ‘vice’ of ‘living relationship’
Read @ANI Story |https://t.co/8rR2rseuMg#NoorMukadam #Pakistan #Murder pic.twitter.com/b1iA8rNVh9
— ANI Digital (@ani_digital) November 27, 2025
It appeared the judge was referring to a live-in relationship, where two unmarried individuals in a romantic relationship cohabitate.
https://archive.mmnews.tv/ihc-upholds-death-sentence-of-zahir-jaffer-in-noor-muqaddam-murder-case/
Noor, aged 27 years, was found murdered at the Islamabad residence of Zahir Zakir Jaffer in July 2021. In May, a three-judge Supreme Court bench, led by Justice Hashim Kakar and including Justices Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Najafi, had upheld the death sentence awarded to Zahir, who was convicted by an Islamabad trial court in 2022.
Last month, the apex court had taken up Zakir’s review petition challenging the capital punishment awarded to him. During the hearing, Justice Najafi told senior counsel Khawaja Haris Ahmed, representing the convict that it would be more appropriate for him to start arguments after going through the additional note he had not yet issued at the time.
Later, Justice Najafi was sworn in as a judge of the FCC, established earlier this month after the 27th Constitutional Amendment.
For Shaukat and Aurangzeb Mukadam, the parents of the 27-year-old victim, the judicial note is a profound second tragedy.
They are left grappling with the reality that their daughter’s gruesome death, a stark reminder that the state must protect women’s right to simply stay alive, has been reduced to an object lesson against perceived social “vice.”
A STOLEN NARRATIVE
Noor, described by her family as a friend, a daughter, and a person who trusted the wrong man, was ultimately failed by every safeguard around her.
The Mukadams’ grief is compounded by the feeling that the justice she deserved was a clear, uncluttered affirmation that her life was inviolable. Instead, they received justice with questions, immediately followed by an uncalled-for sermon.
This judicial language, which links the victim’s relationship status to the horrific violence she suffered, is seen by the family and activists as a devastating attempt to co-opt the tragedy for moral policing.
Social Media Slams ‘Moral Policing’
The public reaction on social media has been swift, fierce, and overwhelmingly negative toward the moralizing language. Activists and ordinary citizens are decrying the attempt to introduce victim-blaming into the official record of a case defined by premeditated brutality.
🚨🚨#BREAKING: Years after the brutal murder of #NoorMukadam, the heinous crime came back to haunt the nation in shameful additional note of #JusticeAliBaqarNajfi. Former PM @NawazSharifMNS lecture on @ImranKhanPTI, UNCENSORED #EXCLUSIVE on this link: https://t.co/4FEQjIbSCi pic.twitter.com/PIUnUndthe
— Asad Ali Toor (@AsadAToor) November 26, 2025
Users are arguing that by focusing on a so-called “vice,” the note shifts scrutiny away from the true failure: the systemic failure to protect women from male entitlement and violence.
Social media platforms are filled with demands that the state must unequivocally prioritize a woman’s fundamental right to existence over any cultural or moral interpretation of her private life.
Despite the fact that Justice Najafi’s note also thoroughly dismantled the defense’s arguments, confirming that the circumstantial evidence had one end of the rope tied to Noor’s body and the other tied to the petitioner (Zahir Jaffer), the focus on “vice” has dominated the public discourse, leaving the nation feeling profoundly unhappy with the moral subtext of the legal victory.
