Punjab Tribunal Awards Azma Bokhari Rs3m in Defamation Case

The Punjab Defamation Tribunal ruled in favour of provincial Information Minister Azma Bokhari on Tuesday, ordering Punjab Assembly Opposition Leader Moeen Riaz Qureshi to pay her Rs3 million in general damages. The decision was issued in Lahore after the tribunal completed proceedings on Bokhari’s defamation claim against the opposition lawmaker.

Bokhari filed the case in January and initially sought Rs800 million in damages. She maintained that Qureshi had made accusations against her that were fabricated and unsupported, causing harm to her reputation in her personal and official capacities.

The tribunal issued a short order after lawyers representing both parties completed their final arguments. Tribunal member Anjum Raza Syed decreed the claim to the extent of Rs3 million in general damages, substantially below the amount originally demanded by the provincial minister.

The tribunal did not accept every part of Bokhari’s claim. Her requests for special and punitive damages were dismissed, meaning the award was confined to compensation for general reputational harm as determined at this stage of the proceedings.

Bokhari’s lawyer argued that Qureshi had acknowledged making the disputed comments during a television programme but had not produced evidence supporting the allegations. This question of substantiation became central to the case because political criticism does not automatically establish the factual basis of a specific accusation.

The dispute arose after remarks made during then-Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief minister Sohail Afridi’s visit to the Punjab Assembly. Qureshi had alleged that Bokhari arranged for 200 paid individuals to enter the assembly premises and that journalists who questioned Afridi were receiving salaries from her.

The ruling is significant because the parties occupy prominent positions on opposing sides of Punjab’s political divide. Bokhari represents the provincial government as information minister, while Qureshi leads the opposition in the Punjab Assembly, giving the case implications beyond a private disagreement between two individuals.

Defamation disputes involving political figures raise competing concerns about reputation, evidence and the scope of public criticism. The tribunal’s decision distinguishes between the general damages it considered justified and the additional forms of compensation it rejected, but its detailed legal reasoning has not yet been released.

A comprehensive judgment will be issued separately and is expected to explain how the tribunal assessed the televised remarks, the evidence presented by both sides and the calculation of damages. Any subsequent legal response from the parties will become clearer after they review those reasons and determine their next steps.