The concept of presidential immunity has long occupied an important place in constitutional discussions across the world. Though its contours differ from country to country, its underlying rationale is similar; the head of state must be able to perform duties without constant legal intimidation, yet no office-bearer should be forever insulated from accountability. This delicate balance between authority and responsibility lies at the heart of modern constitutionalism. At the moral plane, the idea resonates with the Qur’anic principle that all human beings, regardless of rank, remain answerable before God: “And every soul will be paid in full what it has done, and He knows best what they do.” (Qur’an 39:70). The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) also warned against selective accountability, declaring, “By Allah, if Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, were to steal, I would cut off her hand.” Such teachings remind nations that while administrative immunity may be necessary for governance, it must never evolve into moral or legal impunity. Presidential immunity generally manifests in two forms. The first, often called absolute immunity, protects a sitting president from criminal prosecution or civil litigation while in office. It is justified on the grounds that governance must not be paralysed by politically motivated charges. The second form is functional........

© Pakistan Observer