
SC calls for review of Nikahnama form
Listen to article
The Supreme Court has asked the federal government as well as the provincial governments to review the 'Nakahnama form' in order to make it user-friendly, effectively safeguarding the rights of the parties, particularly the women.
A three-member bench of the apex court, led by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, noted that without reviewing the Nikahnama form as a whole, the positive step taken by the Punjab government might not achieve the intended goal of protecting the rights of women.
The Nikahnama form has been prescribed in the Ordinance of 1961 and notified as part of the schedule of the Rules of 1961. However, the federal government is empowered to make rules in respect of the cantonment areas and the provincial governments in their respective areas of jurisdiction.
According to a 22-page judgment, authored by Justice Athar Minallah in a family dispute case, the expressions used in the current Nikahnama form were ambiguous and, therefore, open to be misconstrued.
The judgment said that the federal and the provincial governments might consider reviewing the Nikahnama form "to make it more user-friendly", so that "even a literate person of ordinary prudence does not have difficulty in understanding its requirements" and the columns.
The judgment stressed the need for removing the "ambiguities likely to arise from the vague and ambiguous expressions used in the headings of the columns in the form currently prescribed" under the Ordinance of 1961, read with the Rules of 1961.
"This would not only protect the rights of the parties in general and the women in particular but would also reduce litigation since a more user-friendly prescribed form of the Nikahnama will give rise to lesser disputes," the judgment said.
The court noted that Nikah might also be solemnised by a person other than a Nikah registrar. However, it stated that the integrity, competence, knowledge and understanding of the Nikah registrars were crucial for effectively safeguarding the rights of the parties, particularly the women.
In the province of Punjab, the judgment continued, the Act of 2015 imposed a statutory upon the Nikah registrar to accurately fill all the columns of the Nikahnama with specific answers of the bride and the groom.
The court said that a breach of this statutory duty exposed a Nikah registrar to penal consequences ie imprisonment for up to one month and a Rs25,000 fine. It added the purpose was to protect women from exploitation and provide them with expeditious resolution of family disputes and ancillary matters.
"The legislature [Punjab Assembly] was, therefore, conscious of the challenges faced by women in the context of exercising their rights relating to settling the terms and conditions of marriage," Justice Minallah wrote.
"The Act of 2015, through which sub-sections (2A) and (4)(i) were inserted in Section 5 of the Ordinance of 1961, was definitely appreciable in securing the rights of the parties, particularly the women, keeping in view the social and cultural norms prevalent in many parts of the country," he said.
The court also said that it was indeed a step in the right direction in order to reduce the number of disputes and consequently the volume of litigation as well.
"However, we are of the opinion that without reviewing the prescribed form of the Nikahnama as a whole, particularly the expressions used in the headings of the columns, this positive step taken in the province of Punjab may not achieve its intended goal of protecting the rights of women in particular."
The Nikah registrars, the judgment stated, had the most important role in ensuring that each party exercised her or his rights and that the entries recorded in a Nikahnama correctly reflected their intention.
"It is a statutory duty of each Government to guide the Union Councils in setting out adequate qualifications and criteria for the granting of licences to persons for performing the functions of Nikah registrars," it stated.
"Moreover, training and evaluation of performance of those who have been licensed would further guarantee that the social or cultural norms and influences do not prevail over the absolute rights bestowed upon women under the law," it added.
"The Governments may also consider taking steps to ensure that persons of integrity and those who possess the required qualification and knowledge are granted licences and regular audits of the record relating to Nikahnamas maintained by the Union Councils are conducted."
The court directed the Registrar Office to send copies of this judgment to the cabinet secretary, government of Pakistan, and the chief secretaries of the respective provinces so that they might place it before the competent authorities and forums for considering the observations.
The court expected that effective steps would be taken to ensure safeguarding the rights of the parties to a marriage contract, particularly the bride, who might be more vulnerable on account of multiple factors, including the cultural and social norms and beliefs.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Birthright citizenship challenge still looms for Trump
Olga Urbina and her 9-month-old son Ares Webster participate in a protest outside the US Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship as the court hears arguments over the order in Washington on May 15, 2025. PHOTO:AFP Listen to article The US Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. A host of policies That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. States challenge directive The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as US citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic.


Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
ECP rejects criticism after SC ruling on reserved seats
Listen to article The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) rejected on Saturday what it called 'baseless propaganda' being circulated in certain media circles in response to renewed criticism following the Supreme Court's constitutional bench's decision on reserved seats. The criticism arose after the Supreme Court's constitutional bench dismissed the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-turned Sunni Ittehad Council's (SIC) review petition regarding the allocation of reserved seats. This decision allowed the ruling coalition, led by the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N), to emerge as the single largest party and to consolidate a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly. Amid shifting political dynamics, the ECP has reiterated its constitutional role and defended the legality of its decisions, saying the claims were contrary to facts and intended to mislead the public. In a statement, a spokesperson for ECP said that some circles in the media were engaged in baseless propaganda against the Commission following the recent decision of the top court. The spokesperson said that the Commission declares this propaganda to be contrary to facts and based on falsehoods. The statement said that such elements were unjustifiably targeting the Commission with criticism. It added that historical facts and numerous decisions of the superior judiciary provide irrefutable evidence that the Commission has always performed its duties in light of the Constitution and law. 'The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the position of the Election Commission,' it read. Read More: PTI loses court battle for reserved seats For example, in the Senate elections, the spokesperson said, the Commission's stance regarding secret ballot and show of hands procedures, which was fully in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution, was upheld by a Supreme Court bench headed by the then ex-CJP Justice Gulzar Ahmed. In the case of the disqualification election in Daska, the official added, the Commission's decision was not only declared valid by the Supreme Court bench, led by then Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial but also recognized as a constitutional action. The Supreme Court bench headed by then Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa had also endorsed the legal interpretation of the Commission concerning PTI's intra-party elections, the statement maintained. Furthermore, it said, in the case of the delisting of the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML), when the Commission delisted APML for failing to conduct intra-party elections, and this decision was challenged by APML in the Supreme Court, the Court upheld the Commission's decision. Following this, the spokesperson said, the Commission delisted several other parties that failed to comply with the law, keeping the Supreme Court's decision in mind. The Supreme Court also accepted the Commission's appeal regarding Punjab Election Tribunals, rejecting the Lahore High Court's decision and upholding the Commission's stance. Also Read: PM extends olive branch to PTI amid reserve seats setback Similarly, it was maintained, in the recent case concerning reserved seats of the Sunni Ittehad Council, first the Peshawar High Court and now the SC constitutional bench have upheld the Commission's position as constitutional and legal. 'All these and many other judicial decisions are undeniable proof that the Election Commission does not alter its decisions due to political pressure, public clamor, or for cheap popularity,' the spokesperson said, adding the ECP rather performs its duties solely based on constitutional requirements, legal jurisdiction, and evidence. The ECP said that it would not be an exaggeration to say that the Commission is a constitutional institution that is not intimidated by the unscrupulous tactics of any political party or vested interest group. Therefore, it concluded, it is in no way appropriate to hold the Commission responsible for shortcomings and weaknesses.


Business Recorder
8 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Punjab Assembly Speaker suspends 26 opposition members
The Speaker of the Punjab Assembly Malik Ahmed Khan on Saturday suspended 26 members of the opposition party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), for disrupting Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz's speech and causing chaos in the assembly session, according to Aaj News. The Assembly Secretariat confirmed that the suspension was issued under Rule 210(3) of the Assembly Rules, barring the members from attending the next 15 assembly sittings. During the session, opposition members shouted slogans, engaged in physical shoving, and tore official documents, violating the assembly's rules of conduct. The Speaker 'condemned' their behavior, saying such disorderly conduct damages the dignity and discipline of the House. He acknowledged that while protesting is a right of assembly members, it must follow the limits set by the Constitution and parliamentary procedures. The Speaker emphasized that maintaining order in the assembly is essential and will be strictly enforced. The suspended lawmakers include Malik Fahad Masood, Muhammad Tanveer Aslam, SSyed Riffat Mehmood, Yasir Mahmood, Kaleem Ullah, Ansar Iqbal, Ali Asif, Zulfiqar Ali Shah, Ahmad Mujtaba Chaudhary, Imtiaz Mehmood, Ali Imtiaz, Muhammad Ejaz Shafi, Sajjad Ahmad, and others. The suspension came after the opposition's loud protests disrupted the assembly during the Chief Minister's address, forcing the Speaker to take action to uphold the assembly's dignity and ensure smooth proceedings.