Human rights lawyers and defenders strongly condemn the recent judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan, which upheld the validity of a marriage involving a Christian girl, Maria Shahbaz, and dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by her father. They termed the ruling a missed opportunity to protect vulnerable individuals, warning that it risks deepening inequality and reinforcing a climate of impunity. The human rights advocates demanded accountability of all actors involved in conversion and marriage-related cases, strengthening procedural safeguards to verify age, consent, and free will; and upholding constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and equality before the law. The advocates have announced their intention to challenge the verdict through appeal.

On 29 July 2025, Maria Shahbaz, a 13-year-old Christian girl, was abducted in Lahore and subsequently subjected to forced conversion and coerced marriage. A re-investigation conducted on the directions of the Sessions Court found that the marriage certificate was fabricated, with the relevant Union Council confirming the absence of any official record. The Deputy Superintendent of Police restored the FIR and added further charges. Despite this, the Federal Constitution Court awarded custody of the girl to her purported husband, effectively validating the marriage. This decision disregards documentary evidence of her age, including her birth registration issued by NADRA, as well as applicable legal protections under the Punjab Child Marriage Restraint Act and relevant High Court jurisprudence.

Analysis of the Court’s Judgment

The judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court raises serious legal and human rights concerns, particularly in light of evolving jurisprudence and recent legislative efforts in Pakistan aimed at restraining child marriage, as well as progressive rulings of the Federal Shariat Court on the permissibility of setting minimum age thresholds.

The Court upheld the validity of the marriage and the minor’s conversion to Islam primarily by relying on religious principles rather than a holistic interpretation of domestic law. It treated Maria’s statement as conclusive proof of consent, while disregarding allegations regarding the fabrication of the marriage certificate. Crucially, the Court did not undertake a meaningful examination of whether such consent was free, informed, and given without coercion, intimidation, undue influence, or consideration of the gendered vulnerabilities involved. The absence of a contextual and substantive inquiry into voluntariness weakens the credibility of the Court’s assessment.

In its reasoning on conversion, the Court held that a declaration of faith alone is sufficient and that no further inquiry into the genuineness of conversion is ordinarily required, even where the conversion appears to be motivated by marriage. This approach effectively removes judicial scrutiny from conversion claims, which is particularly troubling in a context where allegations of forced conversions are widespread and where such acts are not explicitly criminalized under domestic law.

The Court’s treatment of evidence is equally concerning. By discounting state-issued documents such as birth certificates and Child Registration Certificates, which are generally regarded as authoritative proof of age, the Court introduced a problematic degree of subjectivity into its reasoning. Its reliance on physical appearance as an indicator of age further undermines established evidentiary standards and raises questions about consistency and reliability in judicial reasoning.

Moreover, the Court adopted a predominantly religion-centric approach, prioritizing Islamic legal principles without adequately reconciling them with constitutional guarantees of equality, protection of minority rights, and the applicability of personal laws governing non-Muslim citizens. This imbalance reflects a limited engagement with Pakistan’s broader constitutional and human rights framework.

The Court also asserted the supremacy of the Federal Constitutional Court over prior precedents of the Supreme Court and High Courts, including those reflecting more progressive interpretations. This position has significant implications for the development and coherence of constitutional jurisprudence in Pakistan.

Overall, the decision is likely to have far-reaching consequences. It risks shaping future judicial approaches to cases involving alleged forced conversions, child marriage, and the protection of minority girls, potentially weakening safeguards and reinforcing existing vulnerabilities within the legal system.

Joseph Jansen, Chairperson of Voice for Justice, raised grave concerns regarding the Court’s reliance on unverified claims of religious conversion and its acceptance of minimal evidentiary standards. He warned that such reasoning risks legitimizing coercion, manipulation, and abuse, particularly in cases involving minority girls. He stated that such verdicts undermine protections for minority communities and discourage victims and families from seeking legal remedies. He further highlighted that flawed investigations and weak prosecutions contribute to systemic discrimination and miscarriage of justice, fostering a perception of selective application of the law. He urged the Pakistani authorities to enact and implement comprehensive legislation criminalizing forced religious conversions as a distinct offense.

Advocate Rana Abdul Hameed emphasized that the judgment lowers the threshold for validating conversions and marriages in contested circumstances, ignoring the structural vulnerabilities faced by minority girls. He noted that courts must apply the highest standards of scrutiny, especially in cases involving potential coercion. 

Advocate Akmal Bhatti observed that the ruling raises serious concerns about due process and the adequacy of safeguards against forced conversions and child marriages. The lack of independent verification of age and consent reflects significant procedural gaps. This judgment raises profound concerns about the protection of minority rights and the rule of law in Pakistan. Immediate corrective measures are essential to restore public confidence and safeguard the rights of vulnerable communities, he added. 

A human rights defender, Aneel Edger stressed that consent cannot be presumed in environments shaped by coercion, intimidation, and social pressure. They called upon the judiciary to adopt a victim-centered and rights-based approach, ensuring that justice is both done and seen to be done.

A human rights activist, Rukhsana Zafar noted that such cases must not be treated in isolation, as they reflect broader systemic failures to protect vulnerable communities. She added that the fear of abduction and forced conversion continues to restrict women’s mobility and access to education within minority communities.

© Eurasia Review