Safia Bano Case (PLD 2021 SC 488): Supreme Court Bars Execution of Mentally Ill Death-Row Prisoners

اردو میں پڑھیں: صفیہ بانو کیس: ذہنی مریض قیدی کو پھانسی نہیں

Can the State hang a prisoner who no longer understands why he is being hanged? Until 2021 Pakistani law gave no clear answer. There was no statute or rule that expressly barred the execution of a mentally ill condemned prisoner, and in 2016 the Supreme Court itself had allowed the black warrants of a schizophrenic prisoner to stand. On 10 February 2021, a five-member Larger Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan settled the question in Mst. Safia Bano v. Home Department, Government of Punjab and others, reported as PLD 2021 SC 488.

The judgment does far more than save three prisoners from the gallows. It lays down how trial courts must deal with a plea of insanity, how they must decide whether an accused is fit to stand trial, and when a death sentence cannot be carried out. It also directed the Federal and Provincial Governments to set up medical boards, forensic mental health facilities and training programmes. This guide explains the case, the law it laid down and how lawyers can use it in Lahore and across Punjab.

Quick Answer: What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

• No execution of a prisoner who cannot understand his punishment. If a condemned prisoner, because of mental illness, cannot comprehend the rationale and reason behind his death sentence, carrying it out will not meet the ends of justice.
• Not every mental illness qualifies. The bar applies only where a Medical Board of mental health professionals certifies, after thorough examination, that the prisoner no longer has the higher mental functions to appreciate why he was sentenced to death.
• Fitness to stand trial must be taken seriously. Under sections 464 and 465 Cr.P.C., once the court forms a prima facie view that the accused may be unable to understand the trial, it must hold an inquiry, and a Medical Board opinion is essential.
• Insanity at the time of the offence stays with section 84 PPC. The onus of proving that plea remains on the accused, but the prosecution must still prove its own case beyond reasonable doubt.
• The 2016 ruling was set aside. The observations in the earlier judgment reported as PLD 2017 SC 18, which had treated schizophrenia as not a permanent mental disorder, were declared to have no legal effect.

The Bench and the Cases Before It

The Larger Bench comprised Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik (who wrote the judgment), Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan, Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah. The Court heard the matter on several dates between 2018 and January 2021, and was assisted by two amici curiae: Brigadier (Retd.) Professor Mowadat Hussain Rana, a professor of psychiatry, and Barrister Haider Rasul Mirza, ASC. The law officers of the Federation, all four provinces and Islamabad were also heard.

Five matters were heard together:

• Civil Review Petition No. 420 of 2016, filed by Mst. Safia Bano, wife of condemned prisoner Imdad Ali;
• Civil Review Petition No. 424 of 2016, filed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab;
• Criminal Review Petition No. 170 of 2016, filed by the State through the Prosecutor General Punjab, asking that Imdad Ali’s death sentence be converted to life imprisonment;
• Human Rights Case No. 16514-P of 2018, about condemned prisoner Mst. Kaneezan Bibi; and
• Constitution Petition No. 09 of 2019 under Article 184(3), filed by Mst. Noor Jehan for her son, condemned prisoner Ghulam Abbas.

The Three Prisoners

Imdad Ali (Burewala, District Vehari)

Imdad Ali was charged with the murder of Hafiz Muhammad Abdullah on 21 January 2001 in the area of Police Station City Burewala. He had no lawyer of his own; counsel was appointed at State expense. His counsel applied under section 465 Cr.P.C. for an inquiry into his fitness to stand trial, but the trial court dismissed it after asking him a few questions, finding no reason to believe he was of unsound mind. A request to summon the Services Hospital doctor who had examined him before the occurrence was also refused.

His wife, Safia Bano, appeared as DW-1. She told the trial court that he had talked of supernatural beings for years before the occurrence, that his abnormal behaviour had become usual in the year before it, and that a doctor had referred him to the Mental Hospital, Lahore. He was nevertheless convicted under section 302 PPC on 29 July 2002 and sentenced to death. The Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dismissed his appeal in 2008, the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal in 2015, and the President rejected his mercy petition.

When black warrants were issued for 26 July 2016, Safia Bano asked the Sessions Court to constitute a medical board. That application, her writ petition in the High Court and her petition in the Supreme Court were all dismissed. The Supreme Court’s 2016 judgment (PLD 2017 SC 18) relied on Indian case law to treat schizophrenia as not a permanent mental disorder. She then sought review of that judgment.

A Medical Board later found that Imdad Ali was suffering from chronic schizophrenia, that the illness had probably started before the crime, and that he may have killed under a delusion of persecution. Medical record from November 2000, before the occurrence, already suggested schizophrenia.

Mst. Kaneezan Bibi (Pir Mahal, District Toba Tek Singh)

Kaneezan Bibi was convicted with a co-accused for six murders committed in 1989 in the area of Police Station Pir Mahal and was sentenced to death on six counts in 1991. Her appeals failed in the Lahore High Court in 1994 and the Supreme Court in 1999, and her mercy petition was rejected in 2000. Mental illness was never raised at trial or in appeal. After her execution was stayed, she was found at the Punjab Institute of Mental Health to be suffering from schizophrenia. The Chief Justice took suo motu notice in 2018 on a jail report. A Medical Board appointed by the Court found that she had severe lifelong schizophrenia and would need lifelong treatment. By the time of judgment she had been in custody for about 32 years.

Ghulam Abbas (Rawalpindi)

Ghulam Abbas was convicted for a murder committed in 2004 in the area of Police Station R.A. Bazar, Rawalpindi, and sentenced to death in 2006. His appeals, his review petition and his mercy petition all failed, and his execution was fixed for 18 June 2019. His mother filed a petition under Article 184(3), pleading intellectual disability and mental illness, and the Chief Justice stayed the execution. The Medical Board found cognitive and intellectual impairment, with an estimated IQ below 59, together with psychotic symptoms.

The Three Questions the Court Answered

1. How should the trial court deal with a plea that the accused was mentally ill when the offence was committed?
2. How should the trial court deal with a claim that, because of mental illness, the accused cannot make his defence?
3. Should a mentally ill condemned prisoner be executed?

Question 1: Insanity at the Time of the Offence (Section 84 PPC)

Section 84 PPC provides that nothing is an offence if, at the time of doing it, the person was by reason of unsoundness of mind incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law. The Court reaffirmed the existing position, relying on Khizar Hayat v. The State (2006 SCMR 1755), that not every mentally disturbed person is automatically exempt from liability, and that every person is presumed sane until the contrary is shown.

Like the other general exceptions in Chapter IV PPC, the burden of proving a section 84 plea is on the accused under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court laid down two principles:

• The prosecution must still prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is not relieved of that duty merely because the accused fails to prove his plea.
• While proving the plea, the accused may rely on any material, oral or documentary, produced or relied on by the prosecution.

Question 2: Fitness to Stand Trial (Sections 464 and 465 Cr.P.C.)

This is the part of the judgment that matters most in day-to-day trial practice. Section 464 Cr.P.C. applies to inquiries and trials before a Magistrate, and section 465 to trials before a Court of Session or the High Court. Both require the court, where it has reason to believe (or it appears to it) that the accused is of unsound mind and cannot make his defence, to try that fact first and postpone the trial if it is established.

After reviewing the case law, including Ata Muhammad v. The State (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lahore 111), Fauqual Bashar v. The State (1997 SCMR 239) and Sirajuddin v. Afzal Khan (PLD 1997 SC 847), the Court held:

• “Reason to believe” and “appears to the Court” mean the same thing: a prima facie, tentative opinion on whether to inquire into the accused’s capacity.
• That opinion must be objective, not impressionistic. It must rest on the material before the court and in the police file and case file. The judge may consider the accused’s demeanour and may ask questions (why he is in court, whether he understands the proceedings, the role of the people in court, the evidence against him). But questions alone cannot be the basis of the opinion.
• The court can act on its own. Even if neither side raises the issue, the court may form the opinion from its own observations, including whether the accused is represented.
• Once a prima facie view is formed, an inquiry is mandatory and medical opinion is indispensable. The accused must be examined by a Medical Board of mental health experts notified by the Provincial Government.
• The Board’s report must be detailed. A bare diagnosis is not enough. It must address consciousness, intellect, thinking, mood, emotions, perceptions, cognition, judgment and insight.
• The inquiry is adversarial. The head of the Board is examined as a court witness and can be cross-examined by both sides. The defence may lead evidence, including its own expert, and so may the prosecution. The court then records a finding on capacity.

The Court criticised the trial court in Imdad Ali’s case for its “slipshod approach” in deciding his capacity on its own impression after a few questions. It also disapproved of the High Court hearing his appeal the day after appointing new State counsel, saying that in a matter of life and death counsel must be given enough time to prepare and take instructions.

Question 3: Can a Mentally Ill Condemned Prisoner Be Executed?

The Court noted that no Pakistani statute or rule expressly prohibits the execution of a mentally ill prisoner. It found implied safeguards in the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978:

• Rule 107(iv): where a condemned prisoner pleads unsound mind in a mercy petition, the jail must send the medical officer’s report with it to the President and the Governor.
• Rule 362: before execution, the warrant and the rejection of the appeals and mercy petition are read out to the prisoner, and he may sign his will. The Court held that the purpose of this rule is to make the prisoner understand why he is being executed, which presupposes that he can understand it.

The Court then looked at comparative and international law: Ford v. Wainwright, Panetti v. Quarterman and Madison v. Alabama from the United States Supreme Court; Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India and Accused ‘X’ v. State of Maharashtra from the Supreme Court of India; Rule 109 of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules); UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2000/65; and the ICCPR and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, both ratified by Pakistan.

Its holding, in substance, was this: if a condemned prisoner, because of mental illness, is found unable to comprehend the rationale and reason behind his punishment, executing him will not meet the ends of justice. The exemption is not automatic. It applies only where a Medical Board of mental health professionals certifies, after thorough examination and evaluation, that the prisoner no longer has the higher mental functions to appreciate the rationale and reasons behind the death sentence.

What Happened to Each Prisoner

Imdad Ali: The State’s Criminal Review Petition was allowed. His conviction under section 302(b) PPC was maintained, but his death sentence was converted to imprisonment for life with the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. Note the grounds carefully. The Court said it was converting the sentence “without touching” his mental health condition, for two reasons: the trial court had disbelieved the motive, which had been overlooked in the earlier appeal; and he had already spent about 20 years in custody, attracting the principle of legitimate expectancy of life recognised in Sikandar Hayat v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 559). The review petitions of Safia Bano and the IG Prisons became infructuous, and the 2016 judgment (PLD 2017 SC 18) was declared to be of no legal effect.

Kaneezan Bibi: Although she had never filed a review, the Court exercised its suo motu review power together with its power under Article 187 of the Constitution to do complete justice. Her conviction on six counts was maintained, but her death sentences were converted to life imprisonment on six counts, to run concurrently, with the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. Her unlawful default sentence on the fine was replaced with compensation under section 544-A Cr.P.C.

Both Imdad Ali and Kaneezan Bibi were ordered to be shifted from prison to the Punjab Institute of Mental Health, Lahore, for treatment. On completion of their sentences, they are to be released only when the Medical Board finds them fit for themselves and for society.

Ghulam Abbas: Since he had exhausted all remedies and there was nothing to show that the President had considered his mental illness, the Court followed Moinuddin v. The State (PLD 2019 SC 749) and directed the Jail Superintendent to file a fresh mercy petition on his behalf, attaching his complete medical record, the Medical Board report and a copy of the judgment. Until that petition is decided, he was ordered to be shifted to the Punjab Institute of Mental Health.

Directions to the Federal and Provincial Governments

1. Amend the relevant laws and rules in line with the judgment, including replacing terms such as “unsound mind” and “lunatic” in the PPC, Cr.P.C. and Prison Rules with “mental disorder” or “mental illness”, and replacing “Civil Surgeon” and “medical officer” in Chapter XXXIV Cr.P.C. and the Prison Rules with “Medical Board”.
2. Harmonise the Prison Rules and jail manuals of all provinces.
3. Establish High Security Forensic Mental Health Facilities in mental health teaching institutions for under-trial prisoners and convicts who develop mental illness in custody.
4. Constitute and notify a Medical Board of three psychiatrists and two psychologists from public hospitals, federally and in each province, to examine death-row prisoners with mental illness.
5. Constitute a Medical Board of two psychiatrists and one psychologist at Islamabad and at every divisional headquarters to examine under-trial prisoners and convicts referred by jails, and accused persons referred by trial courts under sections 464 and 465 Cr.P.C.
6. Launch forensic mental health training for psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, police and prison staff.
7. Have the Federal and Provincial Judicial Academies train judges, prosecutors, lawyers and court staff on mental illness and forensic assessment.

The Court also suggested that provincial mental health laws be amended to cover medically recognised disorders as listed in the latest edition of the WHO International Classification of Diseases, rather than a narrow definition. Commentators, including a 2024 article in the Journal of Pakistan Psychiatric Society, have noted that implementation has been slow and incomplete. Before relying on a Medical Board in a particular district, check whether it has actually been notified and how it can be approached.

How to Use Safia Bano in Practice

At the trial stage

• File the section 464 or 465 Cr.P.C. application early, before the charge if possible, and attach every document you have: prior hospital or OPD record, prescriptions, jail medical record, and statements of family members.
• Ask specifically for referral to the notified Medical Board and for a structured report covering the mental functions the Supreme Court listed.
• If the court decides capacity on its own impression after a few questions, object on the record and cite Safia Bano. Such an order is open to challenge in revision or under Article 199.
• Keep the two issues separate: capacity to stand trial now (sections 464/465 Cr.P.C.) and mental state at the time of the offence (section 84 PPC). Prepare evidence for both.

At the appeal stage

• Check whether the trial court ignored indications of mental illness or decided a capacity application without medical evidence. That is a ground of illegality in the trial itself.
• Even where the conviction stands, documented mental illness can support a plea for the lesser sentence, alongside other mitigating factors such as a disbelieved motive or long custody.

After the death sentence is final

• Ask the jail authorities and the Home Department to refer the prisoner to the notified Medical Board, and make sure the plea of mental illness and the medical record go with any mercy petition under Rule 107(iv).
• If black warrants are issued without a Medical Board assessment, move the High Court under Article 199 (or the Supreme Court in an appropriate case) for a stay and an examination, relying on the Safia Bano test.
• Where an earlier mercy petition was decided without considering mental illness, seek a fresh mercy petition on the Ghulam Abbas pattern.

Limits of the Judgment and Arguments the Other Side Will Raise

• A diagnosis is not enough. The test is whether the illness has taken away the prisoner’s ability to understand the reason for his punishment, as certified by a Medical Board. Depression or a personality disorder alone will usually not meet it.
• The complainant will allege malingering. In Imdad Ali’s case, the complainant argued that he was fit at the time of the crime and was seeking indulgence after exhausting his remedies. Contemporaneous medical record from before the arrest is the best answer.
• The commutations rested partly on other grounds. Imdad Ali’s and Kaneezan Bibi’s sentences were reduced mainly because of the disbelieved motive and the long period in custody (legitimate expectancy of life). Do not present the case as one where mental illness alone reduced a sentence on appeal.
• The onus under section 84 PPC remains on the accused, and the presumption of sanity applies. Safia Bano did not change that.
• The bar is on executing the sentence, not on conviction. A prisoner covered by the exemption remains convicted. The remedy lies in commutation, a mercy petition, or treatment in a secure facility, not release.
• Qisas and the heirs’ rights. In murder cases the legal heirs of the deceased have a recognised stake, and arguments about their rights and about compounding may arise. Be ready to address them.

Why the Case Matters

Pakistan has one of the largest death-row populations in the world, and many prisoners are tried with State counsel and little or no medical evidence. Safia Bano moves the question of mental illness from the judge’s impression to structured medical assessment, tested by cross-examination. It insists that a death sentence can only be carried out on a person who understands why it is being carried out. And it reminds every court that procedural fairness and due process under the Constitution apply with full force when a life is at stake.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the citation of the Safia Bano case?
Mst. Safia Bano v. Home Department, Government of Punjab and others, PLD 2021 SC 488, decided by a five-member bench on 10 February 2021 (C.R.P. No. 420 of 2016 and connected matters). The earlier 2016 judgment in the same matter is reported as PLD 2017 SC 18.

Does the judgment abolish the death penalty for mentally ill people?
No. It bars carrying out a death sentence on a prisoner whom a Medical Board certifies is unable, because of mental illness, to understand the reason for his punishment. It does not stop conviction or sentencing.

Is schizophrenia enough to stop an execution?
Not automatically. Schizophrenia was the diagnosis in two of the three cases, but the test is the effect of the illness on the prisoner’s understanding, as certified by the Medical Board.

Can a trial judge decide fitness to stand trial by asking the accused a few questions?
No. Questions can help the judge form a prima facie view, but once that view is formed, an inquiry with Medical Board evidence is mandatory.

Who must prove insanity at the time of the offence?
The accused, under section 84 PPC read with Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. The prosecution must still prove its own case beyond reasonable doubt.

What happens to a prisoner who is not executed because of mental illness?
He remains in custody. The Court directed treatment in a mental health facility, with release after sentence only when a Medical Board finds him fit.

How We Can Help

If a family member is facing trial, has been convicted, or is on death row and shows signs of mental illness, the right application at the right time can change the outcome. See our Bail and Criminal Lawyer in Lahore and Writ Petitions before the Lahore High Court pages, or contact the office below. Bring the FIR, the judgment, the jail record and every medical document you have.

Muhammad Shafique Baloch, Advocate High Court
Office No. 3, Basement, Miccop Centre, 1 Mozang Road, near AG Office Chowk / Lahore High Court, Lahore
WhatsApp / Phone: 0321-4960782

This article summarises the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mst. Safia Bano v. Home Department, Government of Punjab (PLD 2021 SC 488) as of October 2026 and is not legal advice. Laws, rules and notifications may have changed since the judgment, so read the full judgment and check the current position, including whether Medical Boards have been notified in your district, before relying on any point in court. Every case depends on its own facts. Consult an advocate before taking any step.