Links transfers of civil servants to constitutional family rights under the 1998 Marriage Policy
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that all government departments must follow the Marriage Policy 1998, stating that administrative expediency cannot override the constitutional duty of protecting family life of public servants.
The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Ayesha A. Malik and Justice Munib Akhtar, came following a petition by Mubashir Iqbal Zafar, Deputy Inspector of Health (BPS-5), against the Ministry of Defense and other respondents.
Zafar had challenged his transfer from Abdul Hakim, Khanewal district, to Dera Nawab Sahib, Bahawalpur district, on February 8, 2021, citing medical and family difficulties. He is diabetic, while his wife, Abdul Hakim, a BPS-14 public school teacher in GGES Jinnah Colony, suffers from heart disease and the couple has two minor children. Zafar’s request to remain at Abdul Hakim or be transferred nearby was rejected on March 30, 2021, and the Federal Service Court in Islamabad later dismissed his appeal.
The Supreme Court noted that the transfer had been issued “routinely” without any compelling reason of public interest. This, she said, violated the Marriage Policy and Articles 34 and 35 of the Constitution, which protect family life and promote women’s participation in public service.
Read: SC orders implementation of marriage policy
The Marriage Policy requires the state to consider the challenges faced by married couples and single employees, and publicize them to their spouses or families, unless there is a strong public interest reason not to do so.
The court recognized that a public official “does not have an absolute right to be transferred to any specific place.” However, he emphasized that the purpose of the policy is to reduce the burden of separation and protect family life, forcing the State to follow it. The court also noted that the government’s “one-dimensional approach” often ignores this objective, treating transfers as routine and expecting employees to adapt without considering their family circumstances.
The ruling stated that the policy is “designed to reduce hardship, promote family stability, and encourage greater participation of women in public service.” He warned against using “convenience, tradition, or rigid administrative practices” to override this duty. The Court added that the government must follow the policy fully, both in letter and spirit.
“Instead, we find that the intent is contrary to what the Policy states,” Justice Malik noted, adding that administrative actions must be based on the best interest of the public, ensuring that governance remains people-centered.
Legal experts welcomed the ruling as a significant step towards gender-sensitive and family-centered governance. “This ruling shows that the gender and family perspective is not limited only to women but benefits the entire family,” said Nida Usman, lawyer and founder of Women in Law Initiative Pakistan.
medical difficulties
The court found that the government’s reasoning that Zafar could not remain in one position continuously was “unjustified and inappropriate” in light of his medical and family circumstances. Quashing the transfer order, the court directed all government departments to treat the Marriage Policy as a binding directive to avoid “psychological, economic and social strain on families” caused by orders passed “without reflection and sensitivity”.
Usman added that Zafar’s relief shows that the gender and family perspective applies not only to women, but to families as a whole.
Judge Ayesha A. Malik has ruled on family and women’s rights, including cases involving Khula and spousal abuse.
Read more: SC reinforces the autonomy of women in khula and recognizes psychological abuse
In a ruling announced in October in Dr. Seema Hanif Khan vs. Waqas Khan (CPLA No.3268 of 2024), the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts must apply the civil standard of proof and consider evidence of emotional and mental abuse under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act of 1939 (DMMA), noting that such abuse often occurs in private.
The court observed that abuse within the matrimonial home may go unwitnessed, stated that Khula is a personal right of the woman which cannot be given without her clear consent and assured that the petitioner would retain her dowry including gold, money and property.
It also reinstated the decree dissolving the Family Court on the grounds of remarriage and psychological cruelty, highlighting the need for objective and respectful judicial reasoning. The ruling sets an important precedent for cases involving Khula, psychological abuse and women’s autonomy in marriage.
