In July 2025, the Senate in Pakistan amended the Pakistan Penal Code by way of a controversial but caveat-free revision of an otherwise strong law protecting women against acts of violence in public.
Historically, this part led the act of assaulting a woman, removing her clothes and laying them bare, to be a criminal offence punishable by death or life imprisonment coupled with a fine. It was enacted during the regime of Gen Ziaul Haq in 1982, in response to the outcry against gender-based humiliation. It was intended to serve as a major deterrent to fundamentally dishonourable and degrading actions.
Section 354-A has been amended by the new amendment to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2025, where the death penalty has been taken away. The updated law is supposed to impose life imprisonment or a stringent jail term of 25 years or less. The legislators are justifying this change by claiming that it is necessary to align the Pakistani law with international commitments on human rights such as those that are part of the EU GSP Plus. Advocates of the government have claimed that, though no one disputes that the act of public stripping is, in fact, violent, international law does not define such a crime as one that would lead to capital punishment.
The big question for many people is: will this amendment water down the already weakened system of justice for victims of gender-based violence in Pakistan? The symbolism of the death penalty in 354-A was important in a country where few were convicted, most investigations were suspect and victims regularly ran the risk of threat and social pressure even when the death penalty was not applied.
Even though Section 354-A is not one of the most commonly used sections of the PPC, it has been instrumental in getting key cases. As an example, the provision has been applied in both the Sindh and Lahore High Courts in cases of women being stripped and exposed in the street. One of the most vivid such instances was when a woman was harassed and beaten by a crowd at Minar-e-Pakistan in 2021. Although that case was not litigated in terms of section 354-A, much of the legal punditry that followed indicated that it was squarely within the letter and the spirit thereof.
The bigger records of violence against women in Pakistan support the severity of the topic. Madadgaar Helpline reports indicate that more than 93 per cent of all women have experienced sexual harassment in the streets, and approximately 70 per cent of all women suffered or underwent some violence by their intimate partners. Since these are not mere statistics but a social reality, women tend to exist in the socioeconomic environments in which they slink through the streets, living life amidst issues of threat, humiliation and shame. The effectiveness, or at least the appearance of effectiveness, of the law becomes a necessary ingredient in such a situation. Technically, legal deterrence does not necessarily stop crime, but it defines the moral limit affecting what society is prepared to accept.
There is no corresponding change in the ways of investigation, the work of judges, and care of victims, or the reform of the 354-A, accompanied by the removal of the death penalty. This is what makes many oppositionists concerned that the law has been alleviated, while the state undertook no specific measure to eradicate the underlying, more structural problems in dealing with gender-based violence. The amendment might seem to favour trade partners and international allies around the world, but it sends the wrong message to victims who are already reluctant to report.
Arguments given by proponents of the amendment indicate that the death penalty has never acted as a deterrent in Pakistan, as evidenced by the unrelenting levels of sexual and street violence. They further add that international best practices agree that long-term incarceration and rehabilitative justice are more favourable than capital punishment. This view, however, may be too painful to be idealistic in a country where lodging an FIR itself is a struggle among many women in Pakistan, and convictions do not follow every case.
It is apparent that reforming one part of the law and not strengthening the rest of the system is hardly a significant step forward. The argumentative force of Section 354-A was that it sent out a message that zero tolerance would be entertained towards public humiliation of a gendered nature. Having lost all its symbolism, the weight is doubled on the state institutions as they seek to demonstrate that justice may still be attained in another way.
Pakistan is not only in need of amendments; it requires a fundamental reconsideration of the application of the law, the treatment of women within the system of law and the degree to which the state fulfils its duty. Until then, the discussion regarding Section 354-A will not be just a legal one; it will still be a personal one for the millions of women who move through the streets of this country and hope that they will not be disgraced and assaulted.
The writer is a lawyer.