• Request Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court to set aside the judgement declaring decriminalisation of suicide attempts repugnant to Islamic injunctions
• Argue neither Holy Quran, Sunnah of Holy Prophet (pbuh), nor juristic consensus mandates criminal punishment for the act

ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Psy­chiatric Society (PPS) on Tuesday approached the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court, challenging the Federal Shariat Court’s (FSC) May 18 judgement declaring the government’s decriminalisation of suicide attempts repugnant to the injunctions of Islam.

The FSC had also struck down the Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2022, to the extent that it omitted Se­­ction 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), and declared the rem­oval of the offence from the PPC repugnant to the injunctions of Islam.

Filed under Article 203-F(2B) of the Constitution, the appeal, submitted by Advocate Barrister Muham­mad Mumtaz Ali on behalf of the PPS, requested the SC Shariat App­el­­late Bench to set aside the FSC judgement.

The appeal argued that the FSC erred in holding that the omission of Section 325 of the PPC was repugnant to the injunctions of Islam despite the absence of any express provision in the Holy Quran, Sunnah, or authoritative Islamic jurisprudence mandating the criminalisation of suicide attempts or the imposition of temporal punishment.

The FSC failed to appreciate that decriminalisation of suicide attempts does not amount to legalisation of suicide, which remains prohibited and a major sin under Islamic law, the petition contended.

According to the appeal, the Qu­­ra­nic and Prophetic injunctions relied upon by the FSC establish the prohibition and culpability of suicide bef­ore Allah, but do not prescribe any specific worldly punishment for a suicide attempt, thereby recognising a distinction between religious culpability and the imposition of criminal sanctions by the legislature.

The petition argued that criminalising suicide attempts neither adva­n­ces the recognised objectives of punishment nor contributes to the preservation of life. Instead, the threat of prosecution discourages vulnerable individuals from reporting suicide attempts and seeking medical assistance or mental health treatment.

The FSC, it said, also overlooked established medical and scientific understanding that suicidal behaviour is often associated with mental illness, psychological distress, dom­estic violence, trauma, or severe soc­io-economic pressures, warranting treatment, counselling and rehabilitation rather than penal sanctions.

Moreover, the FSC failed to adequately consider that existing legal provisions, including Section 84 of the PPC and other statutory safeguards, already provide a comprehensive framework for addressing issues arising from mental incapacity and diminished responsibility.

The appeal argued that the FSC identified no binding juristic consensus (Ijma) requiring the criminalisation of suicide attempts and failed to account for contemporary legislative developments in various jurisdictio­­ns, including Muslim-majority states that have adopted a public health-orie­nted approach to suicidal behaviour.

It maintained that restoring criminal liability for suicide attempts is inconsistent with the objectives of rehabilitation, human dignity, compassion and public welfare, all recognised principles of Islamic jurisprudence that underpin modern suicide-prevention strategies.

The judgement, the petition said, undermined internationally recogni­sed, evidence-based therapeutic and rehabilitative appro­aches to mental healthcare and creates a substantial risk of discouraging individuals suffering from psychological distress, mental illness or suicidal ideation from seeking timely professional assistance due to fear of prosecution.

The appeal also argued that the FSC erred in concluding that decriminalisation necessitated the restoration of penal liability for survivors of suicide attempts. Concerns relating to abetment or cyber-incitement of suicide, it said, can be addressed through independent offences and existing legal frameworks, including the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016.

The petition emphasised that the FSC failed to maintain the settled distinction between the religious prohibition of an act and its criminalisation by the state. While suicide is prohibited in Islam, neither the primary sources of Islamic law nor any established juristic consensus prescribes a worldly punishment for a failed suicide attempt.

The appeal contended that Article 227 of the Constitution requires laws to conform to the injunctions of Islam but does not oblige the legislature to criminalise every sinful act for which no specific worldly punishment has been prescribed in the Holy Quran or Sunnah.

It argued that the FSC exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 203D by adjudicating a matter of public policy concerning the repeal of a Ta’zir punishment despite the absence of any express Quranic or Prophetic injunction requiring its retention. Therefore, no question of repugnancy under Article 203D arose.

Published in Dawn, June 24th, 2026