The Effectiveness of Honour Killing Laws in Pakistan: Challenges and Amendments

Introduction:

In this article, the preference of researching the socio-legal issue of honour killings stems from the fact that it is still prevalent in the 21st century despite global awareness and laws enacted to tackle this persistent issue. An expectation placed on women in Pakistan throughout their lives is the responsibility to preserve family honour, being a form that inherently restricts their individuality and freedom. Any such violation of honour leads to justifying honour killing while failing to hold the perpetrator accountable. This makes disclosing the shortcomings of the recent criminal justice system significant, along with considering why there are increasing statistics of different forms of violence against women in Pakistan and what progress can be made to end or mitigate honour-based crimes. Thus, the specific laws within Pakistan’s legal system, from their initiation till 2016 shall be highlighted to outline the various administrative flaws, particularly the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2004 and the Criminal law Amendment Act 2016 which will be analysed. The complexity surrounding honour killings will further be set out to clarify the persistence of this crime, including insufficient legal implementation, judicial errors and negligent case reporting.

Legal Evolution of Honour Killing laws and Contemporary Issues:

Pakistan’s societal framework is profoundly shaped by religious principles, given its Islamic Republic status. Though most Pakistanis exhibit a strong emotional attachment to Islam, a more logical and analytical interaction with its teachings on women’s rights and protections remains constrained. This is mostly attributed to cultural influence, as fixed patriarchal customs often supersede Islamic principles. The 2018 Thomas Reuters Foundation survey reported Pakistan as being the sixth most dangerous country for women. Additionally, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) indicated that 32% of women in Pakistan have been a victim of some form of gender-based violence (GBV). These statistics showcase a vast number of violent crimes against women that go unreported because of social and cultural pressures. Such mistreatment and violence against women lead to inequality and injustice.
This type of gender inequality is reinforced by the former British colonial rule in India and is apparent from the time when the British Law Commission were much more lenient towards men when they brought forward claims of “dishonour” based on the actions of their female family members. This occurred in 1835, which solidified into Pakistan’s legal system over the centuries when addressing honour killings. If a man proved he killed under such provocation, it was classified as manslaughter, not murder, relying on the ‘plea of sudden and grave provocation’. This legal stance impliedly legitimised honour killings within the judicial structure; its influence endured, shaping the post-colonial legal treatment of such cases.

Post-Partition Struggle

Preceding partition, the ‘plea of sudden and grave provocation’ was frequently invoked by husbands who murdered their wives over allegations of adultery. Judicial tolerance with regards to honour related cases was introduced through the Pakistan (Adaptation of Existing Pakistan Laws) Order 1947, where the perpetrators received mild punishment as in Aziz-ul-Rehman v Crown. Although the case enhanced the legality of honour-based violence by establishing precedents for lenient penalties in cases involving alleged violations of “honour”, it did not explicitly address honour killings.

Accordingly, men who established that they had killed under provocation often avoided severe penalties. In Niamat Ali v Muhammad Yaqub, the court abstained from convicting the accused of murder after he killed his wife, reasoning that he had “lost control on seeing the deceased indulging in immoral activity” . The sentence was reduced by the court classifying the act as a crime of passion rather than premeditated murder. Such cases illustrate how legal interpretations of provocation historically compromised justice for victims. Thus, the societal and judicial acceptance of honour-based violence was upheld, which continued to shape the judicial attitudes in Pakistan, where, instead of intentional homicides, such cases are deemed as crimes of passion.

Although the exception of ‘sudden and grave provocation’ was removed from the Pakistani Penal Code in Federation of Pakistan v Gul Hassan, where it was ruled that Islamic law did not recognise the defence, it remained to be argued and accepted in mitigation. Overall, this withheld the patriarchal biases against women, undermining their legal protection.

The 2004 Act: Reform without Justice:

In Pakistan’s legal system, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2004 marked the first legislative framework recognising honour killings as a grave crime amid general impunity for offenders of this crime, especially within their own families. This reform provided a measure of hope throughout systemic leniency. Under Section 299 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Act defined honour crimes as: “offence[s] committed in the name or on the pretext of honour.”

Enacted in response to rising domestic and international pressure, the law was driven by high-profile cases such as the Samia Sarwar (1999) incident where the victim was shot dead in her lawyer’s office and the accused were not arrested. This exposed the failure to protect women from honour-based violence and a surge in reported honour killings. Reports such as the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC)’s 2004 written statement to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2004, underscored such prevalence of honour killing in Pakistan and condemned the government’s inaction in addressing discriminatory laws and customs that continued such violence.

Regardless of the 2004 changes, the Act failed to provide retribution to the victims of honour-based murders. It could not override provisions on waiver and compounding, which allowed offenders to ask for pardon from the victim’s family members. This led to the preservation of non-liability and further added to the concept of inconsistency.

The 2016 Act: Progress and Persistent Flaws:

Honour killings have remained alarmingly common in Pakistan owing in part to persistent deficiencies in legal protection. With the idea of pardoning murder in the name of family “honour”, the 2004 Act proved ineffective since perpetrators could escape legal repercussions. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2016 was enacted as a consequence of extensive outrage, particularly following such renowned incidents, which forbade such pardons.

Initially considering whether there were any alleviations in honour killing cases by the 2004 Act, the statistics by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan suggested otherwise. In the year 2013, 869 women were killed. This number rose significantly to 1,100 in 2015, which showcases a significant increase. The 2004 Act’s culture of impunity allowed offenders to avoid any legal consequences, and this played a huge role in this significant increase of such crimes. This significant increase in honour killings, combined with the lack of effective policies to prevent them, led to a global demand for change.

International attention was greatly drawn by the 2015 documentary by Pakistani filmmaker Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy on honour killings, “A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness”. The film exposed critical gaps in Pakistan’s legal system by highlighting the story of Saba Qaiser, who survived an attempted honour killing but was pressurised into forgiving her perpetrators. The documentary’s impact was profound, gaining international scrutiny and pressuring the government to pass the 2016 Act.

While the documentary already placed pressure on the government, the 2016 murder case of Qandeel Baloch accelerated the legislative process. Social media backlash followed, with hashtags like #JusticeForQandeel calling for justice trending on social media platforms like Twitter, criticising the country’s failure to protect women. That same month, the killing of Samia Shahid intensified the urgency for reform. Shahid, a British citizen, was allegedly murdered by her ex-husband and father for remarrying in the UK.

On October 6th 2016, the Pakistani Parliament passed legislation aimed at deterring honour killings. Originally considered as a means of protecting women, the legislation gave promise for major improvement. Women’s activist Aisha Sarwari acknowledged the development, stating, “This is a step in the right direction.” However, focus soon shifted to the actual impact of the 2016 Act and the extent to which its changes addressed the instilled issues.

The 2016 Act introduced pivotal amendments to the provisions of the Pakistani Penal Code (PCC), intending to fortify legal protections against honour killings. One of the changes introduced was through Section 3 of the 2016 Act which removed the application of Section 302(c) of PPC (1860), which previously allowed for mitigated sentences in certain cases of intentional murder. This amendment increased the length of mandatory imprisonment to 25 years. Thus, limiting judicial discretion and enforcing stricter penalties. Another significant change was through Section 6 of the Act amending Section 311 of the PPC by catergorising the crime of honour killings as fasad-fil-arz offence. This amendment restricted the ability of legal heirs to pardon the offender, granting the court authority to impose discretionary punishment even if the victim’s family pardoned the killer.

The successful enactment of the legislation was witnessed in subsequent cases such as in Sanobar Khan v The State, where the Peshawar High Court upheld the notion of honour killings being uncompromisable. Likewise, in Khadim Hussain v The State, the Balochistan High Court reinforced the ruling that honour killings constitute intentional murder (Qatl-e-amd) and rejected the justification of ‘ghairat’ (honour) as a defence. The court’s ruling maintained the non-compoundability of such crimes, emphasising how neither law nor religion permits such acts.

Although this marked a step towards preserving justice and protecting women from violence, this progress was short-lived, as the flaws of the legislation soon became apparent, exposing persistent challenged in its implementation and enforcement.

Barriers to Effective Legal Enforcement

Given the progress seen in its enforcement, the amendment appears to be a significant step toward eradicating honour killings at a surface-level. However, the law contains major faults undermining its intent.

One of the significant issues lies in the punishment of a perpetrator being left to a judge’s discretion when determining whether a killing is categorised as a plain homicide or a murder in the name of honour. Since the punishment remains at the judge’s discretion, this loophole can be exploited by perpetrators by claiming that their actions were based upon other aspects than on the ground of honour. Although the perpetrator could face a sentence of 25 years, the victim’s family retains the power to pardon him since Diya (blood money) was only eradicated from the Penal Code for honour killings, not plain homicide. Thus, with most cases being classified as homicide, the law’s intent under the 2016 Act remains undermined by facilitating familial pardons of perpetrators.

While it may seem that a major development took place in 2019 when a key loophole of pardoning perpetrators was closed by a Multan court denying Qandeel Baloch’s parents the right to pardon their son, Waseem, who had confessed to murdering her, the progress was temporary. This was since Waseem was acquitted in 2022 after a judge ruled that the crime was not an honour killing and conformed with other laws on murder. A major flaw seen in this ruling was the fact that no retrospective effect was given to the application of the 2016 Act; otherwise, the outcome would have been different. This case illustrated the failure to uphold laws against honour killings, and highlighted just how ingrained this concept had become.
Moreover, despite the enactment of the 2016 Act, such incidents in Pakistan remain persistent. It was highlighted by Human Rights Watch that 460 cases of honour killings were recorded in 2017, comprising 194 male victims and 376 females. Yet, it was noted that accurate figures are difficult to determine, as many cases go unreported or are falsely classified as either suicide or natural death by the victims’ family members.

Advancing the Approach to Honour Killings:

Thomas Rupp’s doctoral thesis analysed a pattern of legal sanctions having a weaker deterrent effect on violent and serious crimes as opposed to minor ones. Research indicates that deterrence depends on the degree of the punishment and the probability of enforcement. This applies to Pakistan, where honour crimes remain prevalent despite legislative attempts to criminalise them. While honour killings have been addressed under various sections of the PPC that provide a legal foundation for prosecution, human rights activist, Asma Jahangir, underscored the challenges in enforcing these laws, pointing to legal ambiguities that result in lenient sentences. This demonstrates the need to enhance Pakistan’s legal provisions set forth by closing statutory exceptions, such as the family pardon provision, to ensure a more robust response to this issue.

The societal dynamics that revolve around honour killings are entrenched in profound cultural norms and prejudices, often seeking justification through ideologies of perceived family honour or control over women, ultimately promoting a culture of tolerance toward such violence. Challenging these false perceptions requires public awareness campaigns and legal education to change societal perceptions around honour and violence. In her research, Ayesha Jalal emphasises how patriarchy sustains power inequality, contributing to the victimisation of women. Effective change of the recurring violence depends on addressing these foundational causes, along with encouraging more awareness.

Moreover, educational seminars and community involvement increase awareness of current prejudices and challenge them, promoting a tolerant and respectful society. These initiatives are significant in dismantling the idea that family honour is solely tied to a woman’s autonomy. This can be achieved through the use of media, helping to educate about legal safeguards and their implications. For this to be impactful, the state must take an active role in ensuring access to information in rural and urban areas.

Conclusion:

After examining the endemic issue of honour killings through the lens of social norms and Pakistan’s legal framework, it can be said with certainty that Pakistan’s honour culture prioritises maintaining a socially acceptable image over any individual rights that would ‘jeopardise’ the family integrity. Although men and women are pressured to maintain this image, women deal with more of this burden. A major contributing factor to honour killings is the disturbing concept that reclaiming honour can be achieved through exerting power over the weak, often through murder which raises the status of the perpetrator within society. This mindset is to be dismantled first. The tendency to sympathise with the male perpetrator is evident in how honour killings are reported. Media narratives frequently attribute the crime to women embracing westernisation rather than blaming the killer.
The most fundamental shift must deal with transforming societal attitudes that perpetuate honour culture and effectively discourage honour crimes. Legal reforms alone would not succeed unless supported by a broader societal rejection of norms that give collective reputation first priority above individual rights.

Bibliography:

Bhatti S, Ali A and Hussain M, ‘“Honor Killing” Crimes in Pakistan: A Scenario Analyzed Under Legal and Human Rights Perspective’ 20

Chughtai A, ‘Pakistani Social Media Star Killed by Her Brother’ (Al Jazeera) <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/7/17/pakistan-anger-after-honour-killing-of-qandeel-baloch> accessed 7 January 2026

‘Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the Name or Pretext of Honour) Act, 2016 | PCSW’ <https://pcsw.punjab.gov.pk/criminal_law_honour_crimes> accessed 8 January 2026

‘Facing Culture and Religion – the Case of Samia Sarwar – Untying Hard Knots’ <https://untyinghardknots.com/2015/10/15/facing-culture-and-religion-the-case-of-samia-sarwar/> accessed 6 January 2026

‘Factbox: Which Are the World’s 10 Most Dangerous Countries for Women? | Reuters’ <https://www.reuters.com/article/world/factbox-which-are-the-worlds-10-most-dangerous-countries-for-women-idUSKBN1JM01Z/> accessed 6 January 2026

‘Girls in the River: Pakistan’s Struggle to End Honour Killings’ <https://intpolicydigest.org/girls-in-the-river-pakistan-s-struggle-to-end-honour-killings/> accessed 8 January 2026Hashmi Z and October 2020 12, ‘Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the Name or on Pretext of Honour) Act 2016’ (SHARIAsource) <https://portal.shariasource.com/documents/3505> accessed 7 January 2026

‘HONOUR KILLING IN PAKISTAN | Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities’ <https://jsshuok.com/oj/index.php/jssh/article/view/202> accessed 7 January 2026
‘“Honour” Killings in Pakistan: Judicial and Legal Treatment of the Crime: A Feminist Perspective | SAHSOL’ <https://sahsol.lums.edu.pk/node/12887> accessed 8 January 2026
Jalal A, ‘The Convenience of Subservience: Women and the State of Pakistan’ in Deniz Kandiyoti (ed), Women, Islam and the State (Palgrave Macmillan UK 1991) <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21178-4_4> accessed 12 January 2026

Mann H and others, ‘What Deters Crime? Comparing the Effectiveness of Legal, Social, and Internal Sanctions Across Countries’ (2016) 7 Frontiers in Psychology 85
——, ‘What Deters Crime? Comparing the Effectiveness of Legal, Social, and Internal Sanctions Across Countries’ (2016) 7 Frontiers in Psychology <https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00085/full> accessed 11 January 2026

‘Multan Court Rejects Request by Qandeel Baloch’s Parents to Pardon Her Killers – Pakistan – DAWN.COM’ <https://www.dawn.com/news/1501024> accessed 9 January 2026
‘Pakistan Adopts New Law to Tackle “Honour Killings” | Courts News | Al Jazeera’ <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/6/pakistan-adopts-new-law-to-tackle-honour-killings> accessed 8 January 2026

‘Pakistan: End Impunity for so-Called “Honour” Crimes’ (Amnesty International, 19 July 2016) <https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2016/07/pakistan-end-impunity-for-honour-crimes/> accessed 7 January 2026

‘Pakistan: Penal Code’ (Refworld) <https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/1860/en/41422> accessed 6 January 2026
‘(PDF) Honour Killings in Pakistan: Legal Perspectives and Reforms’ <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379429558_Honour_Killings_in_Pakistan_Legal_Perspectives_and_Reforms> accessed 12 January 2026
‘QISAS AND DIYAT | Prosecutor General’ <https://pcps.punjab.gov.pk/qisas_and_diyat> accessed 8 January 2026

Rupp T, ‘Meta Analysis of Crime and Deterrence : A Comprehensive Review of the Literature’ <https://tuprints.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/handle/tuda/1012> accessed 11 January 2026
‘Samia Shahid Death: How A Bradford Beautician Fell Victim To A Suspected “Honour Killing” | HuffPost UK News’ <https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/samia-shahid-death-honour-killing_uk_5a8d8e68e4b00a30a2515e2e> accessed 7 January 2026

Talha A and others, ‘Judicial Inefficacies and Legal Inconsistencies in Addressing Honour Killings: A Human Rights Analysis of Pakistan’s Legal Framework’ [2024] Pakistan Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 2931

‘Time to Vow to End Violence against Women’ (UNFPA Pakistan) <https://pakistan.unfpa.org/en/news/time-vow-end-violence-against-women> accessed 6 January 2026

Zafar F and Ali R, ‘Understanding the Causes of Honor Killing: An Exploratory Study in South Punjab, Pakistan’ (2020) 40 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences 937

Aziz-ul-Rehman v Crown [1950] PLD 35 (FC Pak)

Federation of Pakistan v Gul Hassan PLD 1989 SC 633

Khadim Hussain v The State [2012] PLD 179

Niamat Ali v Muhammad Yaqub [1988] SCMR 62(SC Pak)

Sanobar Khan v The State and Others [2018] P Cr LJ

State v Muhammad Hanif 1992 SCMR 2047