Blood Money or Bought Justice? How Pakistan’s Diyat Law Shields the Rich and Betrays the Poor

Blood Money or Bought Justice? How Pakistan’s Diyat Law Shields the Rich and Betrays the Poor

Amna Mumtaz Khan (lawyer, lecturer law, Ph.D. law Scholar )

Pakistan’s law of diyat, codified in Sections 299-338 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), 1860 (as amended by the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1990), offers blood money as an alternative to qisas (retaliation) in murder cases, drawing directly from Quranic principles in Surah Al-Baqarah 2:178-179 to promote mercy, reconciliation, and life preservation. Diyat is fixed at no less than the value of 30,630 grams of silver Rs. 8,103,955 for the financial year 2024-2025 as notified by the Federal Government on October 02, 2024 via S.R.O. embodying haq al-ibad (rights of humans or private rights), where heirs exercise free choice in waiver, forgiveness, or compounding via badl-i-sulh. Yet, its privatization has enabled rampant misuse through undue influence by wealthy perpetrators, undermining justice and public trust, prompting urgent calls for targeted state intervention that safeguards voluntariness without bypassing heirs’ Islamic entitlements.
Patterns of Misuse
Undue influence flourishes amid Pakistan’s stark economic disparities, where poor victims’ families face coercion from affluent accused backed by political clout or jirgas. The 2011 Raymond Davis CIA contractor killings highlight state complicity: Davis killed two men in Lahore and paid $2.34 million diyat (far exceeding statutory value), securing coerced consents amid disappearances and isolation of dissenters, freeing him via blood money. The infamous 2012 Shahzeb Khan case exemplifies this: Shahrukh Jatoi, son of an influential MP, allegedly orchestrated threats, isolation, and pressure on the grieving family, securing a public ‘forgiveness’ statement in 2014 despite initial qisas demands and terrorism charges; public outrage later led to a death sentence upheld by the Supreme Court. Qisas and diyat laws have become a powerful means for offenders to commit ‘honour’ killings and go scot-free, as these provisions incorporated into PPC Sections 299-338 following the Federation of Pakistan v Gul Hassan case allow heirs (wali) to waive qisas (Section 309) or compound via badl-i-sulh (Section 310), even when heirs are perpetrators, as in the Samia Sarwar case where her brother compounded the murder by her parents. Courts routinely uphold such waivers sans scrutiny, as in minor heirs’ cases (PPC Section 336), where impoverished guardians accept badl-i-sulh under duress from local powerbrokers, or Section 313 granting paternal figures (often complicit) qisas rights over insane/minor wali, fostering elite impunity; Section 338F’s vague Islamic guidance exacerbates bias, as in Ghulam Yasin v The State, where ‘ghairat’ killings received concessions despite ahadith prohibitions. Hadith explicitly prohibit extrajudicial honour killings, with the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) stating: “Whoever kills a Mu’ahid (non-Muslim under protection) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years” (Sahih Bukhari), extending to Muslims and emphasizing due process. Another hadith warns: “The blood of a Muslim who bears testimony that there is no god but Allah… is not lawful except in three cases,” none permitting honour-based vigilantism (Sahih Muslim). Human Rights Watch reports dozens of annual honour killings similarly “forgiven”.
Haq Allah and Haq al-Ibad Framework
Classical Islamic jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh) strictly delineates haq Allah (divine/public rights, e.g., hudud like zina or theft, non-waivable by individuals) from haq al-ibad (private/human rights, e.g., qisas/diyat for culpable homicide), granting heirs termed “wali-ddam” Quranic authority (Al-Baqarah 2:178) for the “brother of the slain” to remit for harmony. Free will (ikhtiyar) is sacrosanct; coerced waivers are void per Prophetic Sunnah (e.g., Hadith in Bukhari voiding forced oaths) and fiqh consensus. The state safeguards haq Allah by maintaining public order (aman), intervening solely to verify genuine consent, not usurp private prerogative, aligning with maqasid al-shariah’s objectives.
State Role in Ensuring Free Will
The government must not bypass heirs but proactively assume responsibility where undue influence taints consent, rigorously verifying proceedings’ integrity per PPC Section 309-310. Courts should mandate independent probes via appointed state amicus curiae, victim affidavits, witness testimonies, financial audits, and even polygraphs for waivers showing power imbalances (e.g., wealth gaps over 10x, threats, jirga involvement). Absent coercion proof, diyat/qisas waiver stands; proven influence invokes strict liability, reclassifying as state-prosecuted ta’zir (discretionary punishment) up to death/life imprisonment under PPC Section 302(c), mirroring terrorism overrides (Anti-Terrorism Act 1997).
Istihsan for Strict Liability Reforms
Istihsan (juristic equity/preference), endorsed by Hanafi scholars like Abu Hanifa, enables Shariah-compliant reforms by favoring public welfare over strict qiyas (analogy), averting mafsada (societal harm) like elite impunity without altering qisas/diyat fundamentals. Legislation could deem undue-influence murders strict liability offences state-driven as haq Allah proxy when free will fails mirroring hudud’s non-waivable prosecution (PPC Sections 5-14 Hudood Ordinance), yet revocable by verified heir consent post-probe. Provincial governments gain post-compromise intervention powers (PPC Section 338) for ta’zir if duress surfaces, upholding maqasid al-shariah (life, justice) and Sunnah’s anti-coercion ethos.
Balancing Mercy and Deterrence
These measures preserve diyat’s merciful essence without eroding deterrence. Section 311 PPC (“fasad-fil-arz” or outrage to society) sets precedent: courts impose ta’zir (death/life/14 years) post-waiver for public-corruption offences like honour killings, as amended in 2016 and applied in cases evoking societal outrage. By institutionalizing uncoerced choice via probes, victim funds, and judicial training, Pakistan fulfills Quran’s “reasonable demand” (Al-Baqarah 2:178), dismantling two-tier justice. Legislative clarity e.g., Diyat (Amendment) Bill remains key for uniform enforcement.

(The Author is a Lawyer, Lecturer Law and a Ph.D law Scholar)