LAHORE: Singer Meesha Shafi failed to produce sufficient, reliable and independent evidence to prove allegations of harassment against fellow singer-cum-actor Ali Zafar, maintains a detailed verdict passed on the defamation suit by the latter.
Additional District & Sessions Judge (AD&SJ) Asif Hayat, the other day, had issued a short order-sheet ordering Shafi to pay Rs5 million to Zafar in damages.
In his 155-page judgement, the judge examined whether the allegations of sexual harassment made by the defendant, Shafi, were substantiated through credible evidence and whether they constituted actionable defamation.
The judge observed that the burden of proof lay on the defendant to establish the truth of the allegations or to show that they were made in the “public good”.
Dignity of a woman alleging harassment is as sacrosanct as the dignity of a man accused of it, judge rules in Zafar-Meesha detailed verdict
The judge ruled that serious allegations, particularly of a sexual nature, cannot be sustained merely on assertions, they must be supported by cogent evidence.
The judge noted inconsistencies and gaps in the defendant’s narrative, which weakened the credibility of her claims.
The judge observed that reputation is a legally protected right and any imputation harming a person’s dignity and standing must meet strict legal standards.
He held that the social media post and related statements contained defamatory imputations that were not proven true, thereby causing reputational harm to the plaintiff.
While acknowledging that allegations of harassment are sensitive and may not always have direct evidence, the judge maintained that legal adjudication requires objective proof, not speculation or uncorroborated claims.
“The dignity of a woman alleging harassment is as sacrosanct as the dignity of a man accused of it,” the judge added.
However, he said, the constitutional protection of dignity does not operate in isolation nor does it override statutory requirements governing civil liability for defamation.
Judge Hayat noted that where two claims of dignity intersect, the court is bound to adjudicate on evidence, not on presumption.
He said the defendant was unquestionably entitled to seek redress before a competent legal forum for the protection of her dignity, the public dissemination of allegations prior to their establishment in accordance with law required her to discharge the statutory burden of proving truth and public good.
The judge maintained that under the defamation ordinance 2002, once publication of defamatory imputations is admitted or proved, the burden shifts upon the defendant to establish her defence that such imputations were substantially true and that their publication was for public good.
Subsequently, the judge concluded that the defendant failed to prove the truth of her allegations with any “cogent or independent evidence.”
Conversely, the judge finds that the plaintiff (Ali Zafar) successfully proved that the statements were false and defamatory, intended to damage his reputation.
On damages, the judge observed that although harm to reputation and mental anguish was established, the plaintiff failed to prove special damages through concrete evidence.
Therefore, only general damages were awarded.
The judge further restrained the defendant from repeating or publishing the same allegations in any form, reinforcing the principle that unproven allegations cannot be circulated publicly without legal consequences.
In his 2018 suit, Zafar had sought Rs1bn in damages.
Published in Dawn, April 2nd, 2026