Ahsan Bhoon files Rs 5 billion defamation suit against Capt Safdar ahead of SCBA elections

Veteran lawyer and Judicial Commission of Pakistan member Ahsan Bhoon has filed a Rs 5 billion defamation suit against Pakistan

LAHORE:  Veteran lawyer and Judicial Commission of Pakistan member Ahsan Bhoon has filed a Rs 5 billion defamation suit against Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Captain (retd) Muhammad Safdar, escalating their dispute days before the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections scheduled for October 29.

According to the information provided about the proceedings, the Punjab Defamation Tribunal has declared the suit maintainable and summoned Safdar to appear before the court on November 11, 2026. The case follows a Rs 5 billion legal notice previously issued by Bhoon on September 29 over allegations concerning his law degree and professional qualifications.

The suit, reportedly filed in response to remarks made during television interviews and on social media, seeks Rs 5 billion in damages. The claim includes Rs 1 billion in general damages, Rs 2 billion in special damages and Rs 2 billion in punitive damages.

Bhoon has also requested that the court direct Safdar to withdraw the alleged defamatory statements, issue an unconditional apology and refrain from making similar remarks in the future.

Dispute over law degree

The controversy reportedly began around September 23, when Safdar allegedly questioned the authenticity of Bhoon’s LLB degree while speaking outside the Supreme Court. According to Bhoon’s legal notice, the allegations were subsequently circulated on social media and repeated in other media appearances.

Bhoon’s petition maintains that the statements have harmed his professional reputation and questioned the qualifications on which his legal career is based.

According to the details cited in the petition, Bhoon obtained his LLB degree from the University of the Punjab in March 1989, securing 321 marks out of 700 in the second division. He also completed his BA from the same university in 1984.

His professional record includes enrolment as a lower-court advocate in 1989, admission to the High Court Bar in 1992 and enrolment as a Supreme Court advocate on July 19, 2003. He has also served as president of the Lahore High Court Bar Association, a Lahore High Court judge from 2008 to 2009 and president of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

Bhoon further maintains that the University of the Punjab verified his academic credentials on January 21, 2026, during scrutiny connected with Pakistan Bar Council elections.

Judicial Commission complaint

The dispute also involves a complaint reportedly submitted by Safdar to the Judicial Commission of Pakistan seeking verification of Bhoon’s educational and professional records.

According to the account provided, the commission, chaired by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, subsequently disposed of the complaint after reviewing the relevant qualifications. The petition also refers to verification procedures undertaken by the Pakistan Bar Council.

Election rivalry adds to tensions

The legal confrontation comes as Safdar’s Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah Group prepares to contest against Bhoon’s Independent Group in the upcoming SCBA elections.

Safdar has maintained that questions surrounding lawyers’ degrees should be addressed beyond political considerations. He reportedly told the media on October 20 that he would apologise if lawyers presented their degrees.

Bhoon’s side argues that allegations concerning professional qualifications should be established through the appropriate legal and verification procedures rather than public statements.

Safdar has yet to submit his reply in the defamation proceedings, according to the information provided. His position will be considered through the legal process.

With the SCBA elections approaching, the case has added another dimension to the contest between the rival groups. However, the tribunal’s decision on maintainability does not determine the truth of the allegations or establish liability for defamation; those questions remain subject to further proceedings.