The Lahore High Court has upheld a trial court order restraining singer Meesha Shafi from making any public statements related to her sexual harassment allegations against actor and singer Ali Zafar until the defamation suit between the two is decided.
In a written judgment issued Tuesday and seen by Dawn, Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad ruled that the truth or falsity of the allegations could not be determined without proper evidence and that repeated public commentary while the case remains under adjudication risks turning the dispute into a “parallel media trial, which is neither permissible nor desirable in the interest of justice and fair adjudication”.
The court dismissed Shafi’s petition challenging the gag order imposed by a trial court on January 24, 2019, thereby maintaining the restriction on her speech for the duration of the proceedings.
Ali Zafar had filed the defamation suit after alleging that sexual harassment claims made against him by Shafi were false and had caused serious damage to his reputation.
Alongside the suit, he sought an interim injunction to stop further public statements on the matter. The trial court granted that request, ordering that, “The defendant shall not make any statement which is relevant to the controversy of defamation of plaintiff in this case till the decision of this suit.”
During arguments before the High Court, Shafi’s counsel contended that injunctions should not ordinarily be granted in defamation cases and that such restraints were permissible only in exceptional circumstances. Zafar’s legal team opposed the plea, arguing that continued public statements had caused irreparable harm to his reputation.
In his judgment, Justice Arshad held that there was no “absolute bar” under the law against granting injunctions in defamation cases and that interim relief could be justified where necessary to prevent irreparable damage.
He observed that reputational harm, once inflicted, could not be adequately remedied through monetary compensation.
The judge noted that for a public figure whose livelihood depended on public trust and perception, the continued circulation of unproven allegations posed a serious and unquantifiable risk. “The allegations levelled against him (respondent), if found to be untrue, are of such a nature that they directly strike at his dignity, honour and professional credibility,” the order stated.
Justice Arshad further observed that the material on record showed the case raised “serious triable issues requiring evidence”, adding that the respondent could not be left without protection while proceedings were pending. In contrast, he ruled that Shafi would not suffer irreparable harm by being temporarily restrained from commenting on the dispute until a final decision was reached.
The court emphasized that the restraint was limited and temporary, not a blanket prohibition, and was subject to the outcome of the defamation suit.
The judge also rejected arguments that the order violated freedom of expression, stating that such freedom was subject to reasonable restrictions and must be balanced against the right to dignity.
Relying on the principles laid down in Bonnard v. Perryman (1981), the court held that an interim injunction barring public statements on the subject matter of alleged defamation until the disposal of the case was justified.
While dismissing Shafi’s petition, Justice Arshad directed the trial court to decide the defamation suit expeditiously, preferably within 30 days, noting that the matter had already reached the stage of final arguments.
In his lawsuit, Ali Zafar maintained that Shafi’s April 19, 2018 post on Twitter, now known as X, contained baseless allegations of sexual harassment that severely damaged his public image. He stated that despite a legal notice, she neither deleted the post nor issued an apology within the stipulated 14 days. Zafar has sought Rs1 billion in damages as compensation for defamation.
