Beyond Vegetative Life: The Evolution of the Right to Life in Pakistan

The concept of the “Right to Life” in the contemporary legal order has undergone a complete transformation – from mere prohibition against arbitrary killing into comprehensive guarantee of human dignity and quality of life. This right, which is considered as a supreme and prerequisite of all other human human rights, is codified in apex international human rights instruments and domestic constitutions like Pakistan. When we look into the international statutes, among others ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and UDHR serves as a gold standard – but the jurisprudence of article 9 of the constitution of Pakistan now expands to cover environmental and socio-economic dimensions. This paper provides an analysis of different international and domestic frameworks involving right to life, the phase of judicial activism in Pakistan and emerging challenges of the contemporary time including climate change and digital authoritarianism.

The International Normative Framework: Article 6 of the ICCPR

Pakistan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 2010. This convention establishes the right to life as a non-derogable obligation under Article 6. As per the General Comment No. 36 of the UN Human Rights Committee, right to life has been characterized as a ‘supreme right’ from which no derogation is permitted even in the times of armed conflict and public emergencies. Being the supreme right, the right to life signifies that it is an absolute one since it is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other rights.

The Broadened Scope of “Life” and “Dignity”

Contemporary international law has given us a broad interpretation of right to life and rejects the old narrow and restrictive definition. This right to life, as defined in General Comment 36 also mandates that life should be enjoyed fully with dignity and individuals be free from acts and omissions expected to cause unnatural and premature death.

This broad interpretation shifts the burden of the state from purely negative obligation, meaning that the state shall refrain from arbitrary killing and imposes a duty on the state to protect life from foreseeable threats.

The Human Rights Committee of the United Nations (UN) emphasizes that Article 6 where right to light is enacted, is for everyone without any distinction including those suspected or convicted of the most serious crimes. Deprivation of life is defined as an intentional or foreseeable and preventable life-terminating harm caused by an act or omission, extending beyond mere injury to bodily integrity. States must be cautious when it comes to the protection of lives of the citizens, must practice due diligence and if the state fails to do so, they can be sued in violation of Article 6.

Positive Obligations and Conditions for a Dignified Life

Now that the duty to protect life is on state, it must address general societal conditions that give rise to direct threats. These conditions may include criminal and gun violence, pervasive traffic, industrial accidents and the degradation of the environment. Moreover, the Committee emphasizes on taking additional protection measures for vulnerable groups like HRDs, journalists and officials fighting organized crime.

The General Comment 36 also mentions reproductive rights and medical ethics which are directly related to right to life. While States may regulate voluntary termination of pregnancy (abortion), such regulations must not violate the right to life of the pregnant woman or girl in any circumstances. The Committee explicitly mentions that the States should provide safe and legal access to women facing serious life threatening health issues to facilitate abortions. Additionally, in the context of people who are seriously ill – they must be facilitated when they wish to die voluntarily with dignity but the decisions need to be free, informed and unambiguous.

Limits on the Use of Lethal Force and the Death Penalty

International law has also set conditions for the imposition of the death penalty for states who have not abolished the death penalty yet and provides a rigorous framework for the application of lethal force by state agents. No one can deprive anyone of life arbitrarily, and the conditions of necessity and proportionality must be met.

Parameters for Law Enforcement

Having mentioned lethal force by the state agents, that can only be used when there is no alternative left and other methods have been exhausted. Lethal force by the state is only permissible in the events of serious emergency and imminent threats – which is again debatable. States are required to adopt a proper channel of reporting and review procedures for all lethal incidents to prevent arbitrary deprivation of life.  Proper planning of enforcement actions is essential to minimize the risk to human life, particularly in crowd control situations.

If proper parameters are not set for Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs), we will witness extrajudicial killings. For instance, the Crime Control Department (CCD)  in Punjab (Pakistan) allegedly killed 900 people in eight months – with zero accountability and due process.  There are haunting stories of CCD killings in Pakistan where armed officers from Pakistan’s Crime Control Department raided Zubaida Bibi’s home in Bahawalpur city in southern Punjab province last November, they took everything: mobile phones, cash, gold jewellery and her daughter’s wedding dowry. They also took her sons.

Within 24 hours, five members of her family were dead, killed in separate “police encounters” across different districts of Pakistan’s Punjab – the province that alone is home to more than half of the country’s population.

A fact-finding report released by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has concluded that the Crime Control Department (CCD) in Punjab has adopted a deliberate policy of staged encounters—in many cases resulting in extrajudicial killings.

The “Most Serious Crimes” Standard

The Human Rights Committee insists that ‘death penalty’ must be limited to ‘most serious crimes’ which the committee interprets as involving intentional killing. At the same time, capital punishment is prohibited for individuals under the age of 18, pregnant women and nursing mothers. Recent international jurisprudence says that states should move towards abolishing the death penalty on the basis of evolving standards of decency and human dignity.

Constitutional Framework in Pakistan: Article 9 and Article 14

The right to life in Pakistan is governed by Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 which states: “No person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law”. While the text appears procedural, the superior judiciary has infused Article 9 with substantive meaning, transforming it into a “treasure-trove” for the discovery of human rights.

The right to life has been inextricably linked to the dignity of man – it was established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Article 14(1) of the Pakistan Constitution declares that the dignity of man and, subject to law, the privacy of home, shall be inviolable. The court says, a life without dignity is no life at all. This combined reading has enabled the courts to intervene in cases where the state’s failure to provide basic amenities or its intrusive surveillance practices have degraded the quality of human existence.

The Doctrine of Substantive Due Process

The right to life in Article 9 of the constitution of Pakistan 1972 has led to the development of a “substantive due process” jurisprudence in Pakistan. Although, article 10A as a ‘due process’ was added in the constitution in 2010 as a fundamental right – the courts have long been reading as requiring that any law depriving a person of life or liberty must be “fair, just, and reasonable,” not merely enacted by the legislature. This now allows courts to oversee whether the law is applied in its true essence and spirit, and have a check on the state ensuring that the state does not exercise its power arbitrarily.

Judicial Expansion: The “Quality of Life” Jurisprudence

For much of Pakistan’s constitutional history, Article 9 was only interpreted as a physical protection of an individual “vegetative life”. However, in the late 1980s and early 1990s – judicial activism and more progressive judicial approach had already emerged widening the scope of article 9 to include various “penumbra” rights essential for a “proper and comfortable life”

I will now go into details of rights and landmark cases in the constitutional history of Pakistan and beyond – highlighting how the right to life is interpreted broadly.

Environmental Rights: The Shehla Zia Landmark Case

Whenever we talk about constitutional developments and landmark cases, theShehla Zia case always pops up in our minds. In the case of Shehla Zia and Others vs WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693), construction of an electric grid station in a residential area was challenged, with petitioners citing the potential health hazards of electromagnetic fields. The Supreme Court in its decision held that the word ‘life’ should only be restricted to vegetative state but it also means that life shall be lived with human dignity. he court ruled that the right to a clean and healthy environment is an integral part of the right to life, as exposure to environmental hazards can cause disease and shorten lifespan. This judgement not only protected the right to life of those people but also laid the foundations for decades of environmental litigation in Pakistan.

Socio-Economic Entitlements as Fundamental Rights

The judiciary in Pakistan and beyond has utilized Article 9 to make various socio-economic entitlements justiciable, effectively elevating them to the status of fundamental rights.

1. Right to Health and Water: We also see cases where courts have acknowledged that access to water and a functioning sewerage system are essential for the prevention of diseases and are protected under the right to life. In the famous C. Mehta vs. Union of India case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that access to safe drinking water falls within the meaning of “right to life”; the high court directed the district collector to supply 25 liters of safe water to each person in the village.

In a somewhat similar case (PLD 1996 Lahore 592), the Supreme Court of Pakistan using Art. 199(1)(c) of the constitution explained how the right to life is connected to prevention of disease and inconvenience to the citizens. The Court acknowledged the emergency of desilting and cleaning of the sewerage as well as restoring missing manholes. The court directed to immediately recruit workers on an ad hoc basis thereby ignoring the recruitment ban by the government as well as the advertisement process for recruitments, and further directed that no one including the auditors would raise any objection on the recruitments made for this purpose.

2. Right to Livelihood: The Supreme Court has annexed employment and livelihood to the right to life in various cases. The Court observed that the right to livelihood is undeniable right under Art. 9 of the constitution. Moreover, depriving someone of their employment and livelihood without due process is considered a breach of the right to life.
3. Right to Shelter: There are instances when Courts held that the right to life also includes the right to appropriate shelter. When there are public construction projects, the state should accommodate those displaced because of such projects and they should not be left roofless.
4. Right to Education: 25 of the constitution gives us this right to education and also mentioned in principles of policy, the judiciary has implied that the acquisition of knowledge is essential for a meaningful life, thus obligating the state to provide educational facilities under the umbrella of Article 9.

The Right to Pension: OGDCL Verdict (2025)

A former retired employee of the OGDCL claimed additional pension benefits. The OGDCL denied such additional benefits, Shakeel Ahmad Kiyani (former employee) filed a petition. The two members bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi declared that pension is a fundamental right protected under Article 9 and 14 0f the Constitution. This significant ruling strengthened the rights of retired employees. The Supreme Court declared that pension is not a matter of “bounty, charity, or benevolence” but a constitutional right. To deny or withhold pension is to strip a person of the security they have justly earned, thereby violating their right to a dignified life. The judgment concluded with a reminder of the pension’s constitutional significance: “To trifle with pension is, therefore, to trifle with constitutional justice itself.”

One can now witness how broadly and widely the judiciary is interpreting the right to life. Through this most recent judgement by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Shakeel Ahmed Kiyani vs. OGDCL (2025), the pensionary benefits for retired employees over 40 years of service is covered under right to life (Article 9) and Article 14.

The 26th Amendment: Environmental Constitutionalism

Through 26th constitutional amendment in 2024, a new article (9A) was introduced to the constitution of Pakistan. This article clearly states that every person shall be entitled to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. This article witnessed the new dawn of environmental constitutionalism.

The Paradigm Shift to Article 9A

The introduction of article 9A in the constitution of Pakistan 1973 is a remarkable development in the constitutional history of Pakistan and is now an independent fundamental human right. Before the 26th amendment and article 9A, environmental protection was not a right but was covered under right to life (Article 9) interpreted through judicial activism. Article 9A now empowers citizens of Pakistan to demand a sustainable environment and can hold accountable all private and public entities for environmental pollution. Since Pakistan is signatory to the Stockholm Declaration of 1972 and the Rio Declaration of 1992, article 9A now aligns with these international standards.

Judicial Precedent: Mehar Badshah v. Government of KPK (2025)

While we are talking about article 9A, we saw its application in the case of Mehar Badshah v. Government of KPK in 2025 which is cited as PLD 2025 SC 36. The question before the honorable Supreme Court was the alarming deforestation (Timber) in KPK which had reduced natural forest cover from 3.59 million to 3.32 million hectares. The Court stated that forests should be treated as a vital part of the ecosystem and not just as a source of timber. The Forest Department of KPK was criticised for their colonial mindset. The Court in the judgement held the government accountable for their incompetence and declared that illegal cutting of trees and the failure of government in protecting the ecosystem (nature) constitutes the violation of both Article 9 and 9A. This judgment underscores that environmental sustainability is now a mandate of the Constitution.

Challenges to Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law

The 26th Amendment, although, is praised for the incorporation of Article 9A, it at the same time altered the structure and powers of the judiciary – independence of judiciary being put at stake since there are raising concerns among legal experts and human rights organizations regarding judicial independence. These changes are going to the human rights situation and judicial independence in Pakistan.

Structural Reforms and Political Influence

Before 26th Amendment, the appointment of the Chief Justice of Pakistan was based on seniority rule but after this amendment, this rule is being discarded and a special parliamentary committee shall be formed for such appointment. Additionally, the amendment re-structured the Judicial Commission of Pakistan to increase political representation – which means giving power to the ruling coalition the power to “pack” the courts with preferred candidates. The creation of dedicated “Constitutional Benches” within the courts, managed by a government-majority Commission, is seen as an attempt to control the outcome of constitutional litigation.

Impact on Human Rights Enforcement

These changes and challenges to the independence of the judiciary have significant implications for the right to life. If we peep into the tunnel of history, we see that the Supreme Court has used its suo motu powers to address grave human rights violations like enforced disappearances and environmental hazards. The 26th Amendment snatched these powers from the courts – the courts can now just act as an impartial check on executive powers. There is criticism of these changes since a ‘rubber-stamp’ judiciary cannot enforce the rights of people and protect people from state repression. When judges are politicised and the judiciary is not free, the laymen can no longer expect justice.

The Crisis of Enforced Disappearances and Extrajudicial Killings

Despite laws, checks and the expansive interpretation of article 9, the right to life in Pakistan is severely undermined by the issues of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial encounters. The State, in order to silence the dissent, disappear people with no due process and they are later found dead.

The victims of enforced disappearances are mostly ethnic minorities, human rights activists and journalists from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan and it has been a long standing issue. From 2010 to 2025, the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances (COIED) reported 10,592 registered cases. The Commission was formed by the government but positive developments have not been witnessed. Moreover, the families of victims and civil society organisations claim that the number of enforced disappearances is much higher. The Commission’s inability to enforce production orders or to prosecute suspected perpetrators from the security agencies has led to a climate of impunity.

The right to life has always been scapegoated in Pakistan. An increase in encounters and extrajudicial killings has been observed. In just two years, between November 2022 and April 2024, the Punjab Police alone reported 1041 such incidents. The dilemma is that only 25 judicial inquiries were conducted – which were never made public.

Balochistan, which is a hub of these incidents – human rights organisations continue to report “kill and dump policy”, dissidents are abducted, tortured, and their bodies found later in remote areas.

In just five years, from 2018 to 2023 – an overwhelming increase of 166% was seen in police encounters which are deemed to violate the right to life and security of a person. Furthermore, the alarming increase in targeted killings of Shias and Ahmadis was also noted – which is a violation of equality and religious freedom.

Religion, Law, and the Right to Life: The Blasphemy Conflict

The most contested blasphemy law poses a volatile challenge to the right to life. Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code states that anybody found guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Prophet shall be sentenced to death penalty. What is most concerning is the absence of due process in blasphemy cases and the alleged person mostly faces mob justice and not the law.

As per reports, no one has been officially executed by the state for blasphemy since mere accusation results in death. The accused persons are being killed by vigilantes and since 1990, 65 people have been killed by mobs over these allegations. Even a person accused of blasphemy was killed in police custody and the state failed to intervene. These laws are frequently manipulated to settle personal vendettas, property disputes, or family feuds.

The Hazara Shia population and the Ahmadiyya community have faced systematic violence. Alone in 2024, there were four target killings of the Ahmadiyya Community and they remain victims of persecution. Similarly, Hazara Shia population have witnessed suicide bombings and targeted attacks by banned religious outfits, which resulted in significant loss of life.

Capital Punishment: The Interaction of Qisas and Diyat

The Qisas and Diyat Ordinance of 1990 in Pakistan deals with the death penalty wheremurder and bodily hurt has been redefined in islamic terms.

As per these laws, the punishment for murder can be either Qisas (equal retribution) or Diyat (compensation in terms of money payable to heirs). The interesting part of the Ordinance is that it has ‘privatized’ the offense of murder and is now considered an offence against the family and not the state. While this allows for restorative justice and reconciliation, it has been criticized for allowing wealthy offenders to escape punishment by paying blood money, thereby creating a disparity in the protection of life based on socio-economic status.

Currently, over 3600 individuals are facing execution and Pakistan is considered as one of the largest death row populations in the world. Between 2008 and 2013, a de facto moratorium was observed and executions were stopped, the activity continued following the 2014 Army Public School terrorist attack. However, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 2021 banned execution of prisoners with mental disabilities – holding that such executions violate the constitutional right to life and dignity.

Digital Authoritarianism: Surveillance and Shutdowns

As the world is going digital and technological with each passing day, the right to life is also now gravely impacted by the state’s control and surveillance.

Recently, the government of Pakistan invested heavily in surveillance technology which enabled the real-time monitoring of citizens – negatively affecting civil liberties of citizens. The Supreme Court in various cases established that digital surveillance, phone tapping and eavesdropping violate the right to life and privacy of the individual. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto case held that bugging private homes and chambers of the judiciary was illegal and a blow to judicial independence. Pakistan witnessed repeated and prolonged internet shutdowns during protests and elections in 2024. These shutdowns have affected various aspects of life. The healthcare and emergency services were hindered, leaving healthcare professionals completely helpless. Pakistan lost around $1.62 billion in 2024 alone due to internet outages. These shutdowns further facilitated isolating families and state repression.

Economic Injustice and the “Right to Livelihood”

The economic situation in any country is directly linked to the right to life – same goes for Pakistan. The country;s ongoing economic crisis like soaring inflation, unemployment etc., have jeopardized the rights to health, food and standard of living for millions.

When it comes to economic injustices in Pakistan, nearly 40% of children are stunned due to malnutrition and rural poverty. The report shows slow structural transformation, leaving 85% of the workforce in informal and low-quality jobs. These conditions undermine the right to life and pose a systematic threat to the ‘dignity’ standard of General Comment 36 on right to life.

The right to livelihood is being taken hostage by modern slavery, where 3 million individuals are trapped in debt bondage in brick kilns and agriculture. These circumstances compel whole families, even children and women, to do labor to repay debts – representing fundamental violation of the right to life and the prohibition of forced labor under Article 11 of the Constitution.

Global Context: Climate Litigation and State Responsibility

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2025 gave advisory opinion on environmental sustainability and climate litigation. According to that document, the states have legal obligations to protect the environment and climate system from Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The ICJ noted that negative effects of the environment are posing significant challenges to human rights, particularly right to life and a healthy environment.

Additionally, European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in a case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland, recognised that inadequate climate mitigation and adaptation measures fall within the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights. These international precedents provide a roadmap for the application of article 9A in Pakistan – recognizing that the state has the duty to protect its citizens from the catastrophic impacts of global warming.

Synthesis: A Precarious Jurisprudential Balance

In Pakistan, the right to life exists in a precarious tension between expansive interpretation by the courts and regressive state practices. From ‘ vegetative’ to ‘quality of life’ shift, this interpretation is a direct response to state failures in providing basic amenities and its role in environmental degradation. The Courts have always stepped in as a custodian of rights. But this activism by courts have posed a threat to executive powers and are in conflict most of the time resulting in constitutional amendments i.e, 26th and 27th constitutional amendments curbing judicial powers and independence.

Almost every aspect of life is based on the right to life. The economic crisis like inflation and debt bondage are not merely economic factors but life threatening forces that the state needs to address. Similarly, surveillance and using firewalls for political control has direct consequences for human rights and safety.

Future Outlook and State Responsibility

Theoretically, we have laws and rights that can sustain a life with dignity. But the state needs to move from compliance to application of those rights. Article 9A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 offers a promise of environmental justice, but the state has to be inclined towards substantive enforcement. In 2024, the UN Human Rights Committee stated that Pakistan must criminalise enforced disappearances, reform its strict blasphemy laws and ensure that death penalty be limited to only serious crimes and awarded with necessity and proportionality.

At first the right to life was a shield against the state’s sword and meant only protection; but now a citizen can demand a life of respect, dignity, health and security. For the state to fulfill its constitutional promises and international obligations – a gap must be bridged between legal rhetoric and practical application and enforcement.

Bibliography:

1. CCPR/C/GC/36 – ohchr, accessed March 17, 2026, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/CCPR_C_GC_36.pdf
2. Article 6: The Right to Life – A Commentary on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Cambridge University Press & Assessment, accessed March 17, 2026, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/commentary-on-the-international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-rights/article-6-the-right-to-life/D428D1C302FB358CDF671E44CA0CBA41
3. Pakistan: ICJ welcomes UN Human Rights Committee’s Concluding Observations on Pakistan – International Commission of Jurists, accessed March 17, 2026, https://www.icj.org/pakistan-icj-welcomes-un-human-rights-committees-concluding-observations-on-pakistan/
4. Death Penalty in Pakistan in nexus with International human rights laws and Sharia’h, accessed March 17, 2026, https://www.advancelrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Death-Penalty.pdf
5. Right to Life and its Penumbra Aspects – University of the Punjab, accessed March 17, 2026, https://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/bazyaft/PDF/22_v32_2018.pdf
6. Legal Safeguards Against Mob Justice: An Analysis of Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan and International Human Rights Norms – ResearchGate, accessed March 17, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376380446_Legal_Safeguards_Against_Mob_Justice_An_Analysis_of_Blasphemy_Laws_in_Pakistan_and_International_Human_Rights_Norms
7. Electronic Surveillance and Interception Laws in Pakistan, accessed March 17, 2026, https://rsilpak.org/2022/electronic-surveillance-and-interception-laws-in-pakistan/
8. Supreme Court declares pension a constitutional right in landmark OGDCL verdict, accessed March 17, 2026, https://voicepk.net/2025/10/supreme-court-declares-pension-a-constitutional-right-in-landmark-ogdcl-verdict/
9. analytical exposition of right to life with reference to judicial decisions in pakistan and india – GLSR, accessed March 17, 2026, https://www.glsrjournal.com/article/analytical-exposition-of-right-to-life-with-reference-to-judicial-decisions-in-pakistan-and-india
10. Supreme Court on Forest Depletion and Article 9A: Mehar Badshah vs. GOVERNMENT OF KPK (PLD 2025 Supreme Court 36) – Courting The Law, accessed March 17, 2026, https://courtingthelaw.com/2025/07/05/commentary/mehar-badshah-vs-government-of-khyber-pakhtunkhwa/
11. (PDF) Historical Evolution Of Environmental Rights In Pakistan: Pre-26th Amendment, accessed March 17, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395710682_Historical_Evolution_Of_Environmental_Rights_In_Pakistan_Pre-26th_Amendment-sc-5/

12. Impacts of 26th Constitutional Amendment on the Independence of Judiciary in Pakistan, accessed March 17, 2026, https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebj/ijpssr/2025v4iiia11.html
13. Pakistan – United States Department of State, accessed March 17, 2026, https://2021-2025.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/pakistan/
14. Global Torture Index 2025: Pakistan Factsheet, accessed March 17, 2026, https://www.omct.org/site-resources/files/factsheets/Factsheet-Pakistan.2025.pdf
15. World Report 2025: Pakistan | Human Rights Watch, accessed March 17, 2026, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2025/country-chapters/pakistan
16. World Report 2024: Pakistan | Human Rights Watch, accessed March 17, 2026, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/pakistan
17. “A Conspiracy to Grab the Land”: Exploiting Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws for Blackmail and Profit | HRW, accessed March 17, 2026, https://www.hrw.org/report/2025/06/09/conspiracy-grab-land/exploiting-pakistans-blasphemy-laws-blackmail-and-profit
18. Executions under the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance – Refworld, accessed March 17, 2026, https://www.refworld.org/reference/countryrep/amnesty/1995/en/21993