Meesha Shafi failed to substantiate allegations against Ali Zafar, court says in written verdict
- By Abid Khan -
- Apr 01, 2026
LAHORE – In a significant legal development, a sessions court has ruled that the onus of proof rested entirely on singer Meesha Shafi to substantiate her harassment claims against Ali Zafar. Issuing a detailed 155-page verdict, Additional Sessions Judge Asif Hayat concluded that Shafi failed to meet this legal burden, resulting in a judgment in favor of Zafar.
The court emphasized that when a defendant levels serious public allegations, the responsibility to provide evidence—rather than the plaintiff’s responsibility to prove a negative—is the central pillar of a defamation suit.
Core Findings of the Verdict
The judgment provided a thorough breakdown of why the court found Meesha Shafi’s statements to be defamatory:
-
Failure to Prove Onus: The court declared that it was Meesha Shafi’s responsibility to prove her claims were true and based on facts. The evidence presented was deemed insufficient to support her accusations of harassment.
-
Public Interest vs. Reputation: While Shafi argued her “tweet and interviews” were for the public good, the court ruled she failed to prove that the allegations were made for public welfare. Consequently, the court found the statements served only to damage Ali Zafar’s reputation.
-
The “Public Figure” Standard: The judge noted that while harassment victims often suffer in silence, Shafi’s approach was different. By choosing a public platform to accuse a well-known figure, she incurred a higher responsibility to prove the truth of her words.
-
Legal Consequences: Under the evidence provided, the court categorized Shafi’s statements as defamatory and ordered her to pay Rs 5 million (50 Lakh) in damages.
Beyond the financial penalty, the court has issued a strict directive to Meesha Shafi regarding her future conduct. She is legally barred from repeating these harassment allegations against Ali Zafar, whether directly or indirectly, through any medium.
“The plaintiff’s reputation was significantly harmed by these unsubstantiated claims. Since the defendant chose to make these allegations on a public level for ‘the public good,’ the burden of proving them true lay solely with her.” — Statement from the Detailed Decision