The fragility of the right to life in Pakistan was starkly highlighted on July 21, 2025, when Pakistani authorities reported the arrest of 11 individuals in connection with the ‘honour killing’ of a newlywed couple in Balochistan. This brutal murder, where the pair were shot, quickly attracted widespread foreign attention and set off a national outcry after a video of the killing went viral. The victims, Bano Bibi and her husband Ehsan Ullah, were said to have been targeted by their relatives, who viewed their marriage as a deep insult to family ‘honour’. Earlier in April 2025, two were killed in Swat over honour disputes, underscoring persistent tribal dominance over state law. With 405-547 cases in 2024 alone, these events expose enforcement failures.

Even though there have been legislative advancements, such as the Anti-Honour Killing Laws (Criminal Amendment Bill) of 2016 which aims to identify the legal loopholes enabling killers to be acquitted by the victim’s families, the tradition of ‘honour’ killings still persists. The acquittal of Muhammad Wasim (Muhammad Wasim v. The State), demonstrated judicial inability to apply the law strictly, accepting family compromise despite the Act. These cases, alongside 2025 killings, highlight difficulties in enforcement amid societal tolerance.

These developments, while leading to arrests and momentary public outrage, underscore a struggle to dismantle entrenched cultural justifications undermining Pakistan’s obligations under international human rights law. A major part of this challenge lies in the legislative gaps persisting even after the landmark Anti-Honour Killing Laws (Criminal Amendment Bill) of 2016. The law’s crucial weakness is the insertion of the word ‘may’ instead of ‘shall’ when mandating life imprisonment (Tazir) for honour killings, even if the victim’s family grants a pardon. This small legislative detail grants judges vast discretion, allowing judicial officers to be swayed by patriarchal cultural pressures to accept a family’s waiver of Qisas (retribution) and let the perpetrator walk free, as painfully demonstrated by the acquittal of Muhammad Wasim. Furthermore, the defence often feeds on the argument that the murder was explicitly committed ‘in the name of honour’ which enables the case to revert to ordinary murder charges where family forgiveness is permissible.

These ambiguities are amplified by concerning judicial trends. Pakistan’s higher courts frequently show a troubling tendency by leaning towards technical acquittal, procedural flaws and retracted confessions over the clear intent of the Anti-Honour Killing law, especially when a compromise is reached. This trend underscores a continued societal and judicial deference to customary practices and the concept of family ‘honour’ over the state’s obligation to uphold the rule of law. While there is a counter-trend of the State challenging these acquittals in the Supreme Court, the persistence of these loopholes and the routine acceptance of family pardons serve as a constant reminder that without eliminating judicial discretion and definitively closing the door on forgiveness for honour crimes, legal reforms will remain insufficiently effective in protecting vulnerable individuals and ensuring justice.

A Shared Human Rights Imperative: Deconstructing ‘Honour’ and Upholding Rights

The inability to prosecute honour murders signals systemic failure. Despite the 2016 Act amending the Pakistan Penal Code (sections 299-311) to treat honour killings as murder punishable by death or life without family pardon discretion in most cases, enforcement remains irregular due to jirgas protecting offenders. Resource shortages and poor investigations lead to misclassifications and acquittals.

The failure of the state is also apparent in its disregard for its preventive responsibilities. Numerous instances demonstrate that at-risk persons, frequently young women asserting their fundamental right to select a mate, remain unprotected despite evident risks to their lives. These failures constitute a direct infringement of established international commitments, including Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as Pakistan’s obligations under the Convention on  the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

Pakistan’s challenge stems not from absent laws, but from failing to enforce them against patriarchal authority, bias, and the myth of ‘honour’. To fulfil international obligations, lawmakers must replace judicial discretion with mandatory life sentences, dismantle jirgas, and invest in prevention like shelters for at-risk women. Only then can South Asia reclaim the right to life from the shadow of ‘honour’.