When Justice Favors the Wealthy: Natasha Danish and Shahzeb Khan Case!

In a world where justice is supposed to be blind, Pakistan’s legal system often reveals its biases, particularly when wealth and power are involved. The tragic incidents involving Natasha Danish, wife of Danish Iqbal, Chairman of Gul Ahmed Energy Limited, and the brutal murder of university student Shahzeb Khan underscore the deep-seated inequities that plague the country’s judicial system. These cases are not isolated; they are symptomatic of a broader societal issue where the wealthy and powerful manipulate the law to their advantage, leaving the less privileged to suffer in silence.

Natasha Danish Case: A Tragic Reminder of Legal Inequity

On Karsaz Road in Karachi, a horrific accident claimed the lives of five people, including university student Amina Arif and her father. Natasha Danish, the wife of a prominent industrialist, was behind the wheel of the Prado that caused this tragedy. Reports indicate that she was under the influence of alcohol when she ran over the victims. Despite the gravity of her actions, Natasha’s defense team quickly moved to present her as a psychiatric patient, claiming she had been under treatment for five years and was not in her senses during the incident.

This defense strategy, although legally valid, raises significant ethical concerns. Natasha’s lawyer argued that her mental state absolved her of responsibility, a claim that was seemingly accepted by the court. This decision has left many questioning the integrity of the justice system, especially considering the swift and lenient handling of her case.

The stark reality is that in Pakistan, the law often bends to accommodate the wealthy. Natasha was admitted to Jinnah Hospital for treatment, rather than facing the full force of the law like an ordinary citizen would. This outcome not only undermines the principles of justice but also highlights the disparities between how the rich and poor are treated in the legal system.

The Shahzeb Khan Case: A Tragic Echo of Injustice

The Natasha Danish case is reminiscent of another high-profile incident—the murder of Shahzeb Khan in 2012. Shahzeb, a university student, was gunned down in Karachi by Shahrukh Jatoi, the son of a wealthy feudal lord, and his accomplices. The crime was a targeted revenge killing, but it was the aftermath that truly shocked the nation.

Initially, the killers were sentenced to death, a rare instance of the law taking a firm stance against the powerful. However, this victory for justice was short-lived. Shahzeb’s parents, under immense social and possibly economic pressure, eventually pardoned the killers, leading to their release. The legal system, which should have been a bastion of fairness and accountability, instead became a tool for the influential to escape punishment.

The public’s outrage over this case was not just about the murder itself but about the broader implications for justice in Pakistan. The ease with which Shahrukh Jatoi and his accomplices manipulated the system to secure their freedom exposed the deep flaws in the country’s legal framework. It became clear that in Pakistan, justice could be bought, and the lives of ordinary citizens were expendable in the eyes of the law.

The Role of Mental Health in Legal Defense: A Double-Edged Sword

In both cases, mental health was used as a defense, raising important questions about the ethical use of psychiatric diagnoses in the courtroom. Mental illness is a serious and often misunderstood condition that requires careful handling. However, in the hands of the wealthy, it becomes a convenient escape route—a way to evade responsibility for even the most heinous of crimes.

Natasha Danish’s defense claimed that her mental state rendered her incapable of understanding her actions, and therefore, she should not be held accountable. While mental health defenses are legally permissible, they must be scrutinized to ensure they are not being exploited to protect those who can afford top-tier legal representation.

When such defenses are accepted without rigorous examination, they undermine public trust in the legal system. They also trivialize the experiences of those genuinely suffering from psychiatric conditions who might not have the same resources to mount a similar defense.

The Public’s Role in Seeking Justice: Boycott and Protest

In the face of such legal inequities, the public often feels powerless. However, collective action can still make a difference. In response to the Natasha Danish case, some have called for a boycott of the Gul Ahmed brand, a move aimed at hitting the owners where it hurts most—financially. This form of protest may seem symbolic, but it is one of the few ways the average citizen can exert pressure on the powerful.

Economic boycotts can serve as a wake-up call to the elite, demonstrating that their actions have consequences beyond the courtroom. When a brand’s reputation is tarnished, it can lead to financial losses, which, for the wealthy, is a significant form of accountability. It also sends a clear message that the public will not stand idly by while the rich and powerful escape justice.

The Need for Legal Reform: Ensuring True Justice

The cases of Natasha Danish and Shahzeb Khan are not just about individual tragedies; they are about a broken system that fails to deliver justice impartially. For Pakistan to move forward, there needs to be a concerted effort to reform the legal system to ensure that justice is truly blind—that it does not discriminate based on wealth or social status.

Legal reform should include stricter scrutiny of defenses based on mental health claims, ensuring that they are not misused to shield the wealthy from accountability. Additionally, there must be greater transparency in legal proceedings, with public oversight to prevent undue influence from powerful individuals or groups.

Moreover, there should be harsher penalties for those who use their wealth to manipulate the legal system. This could include not only criminal penalties but also significant financial sanctions that would serve as a deterrent to others.

Conclusion: A Call for Justice

The stories of Natasha Danish and Shahzeb Khan are tragic reminders of the deep flaws in Pakistan’s legal system. They highlight the urgent need for reform and the importance of holding the powerful accountable. Until the law is applied equally to all citizens, regardless of their wealth or status, true justice will remain elusive. The public, too, has a role to play in demanding change—whether through protest, boycott, or advocacy for legal reform. Only then can we hope to build a society where justice is not just a privilege for the few, but a right for all.