Case No.9 ends, but the conversation goes on

Even after its final episode, Case No. 9 continues to provoke debate — not just as a television drama, but as a reflection of the lived realities surrounding sexual violence, legal processes, and media ethics in Pakistan.

Starring Saba Qamar and Faysal Qureshi, the drama was widely discussed for its performances, but more importantly, for the sensitive issue it placed at the center of its narrative.

In a recent podcast discussion, Saneela and Laiba sit down to unpack how accurately the drama portrayed legal proceedings and whether it succeeded in responsibly telling such a difficult story.

From a crime reporter’s perspective, the legal detailing stood out. “All the legal proceedings that took place — everything that happened — it was so accurate,” Laiba noted, while also cautioning viewers against assuming that real courtrooms look as polished as those on screen. “The way a court’s setup is depicted in dramas, a court is not always like this. Especially in lower or sessions courts.”

One of the most significant aspects of Case No. 9 was its handling of survivor trauma. The drama repeatedly addressed a question often asked of survivors: Why didn’t you report it immediately? As Laiba explained, “You are so traumatized when something like this happens that your first reaction, in most cases, is not that I have to get my medical done or go to the police station.”

The drama also highlighted the now-nullified two-finger test, a moment Laiba described as crucial. “That was a very big, landmark judgement… it is humiliating, and medically, it proves nothing.” By including this detail, the show educated audiences unfamiliar with the realities of medico-legal procedures and survivor mistreatment.

Another element praised in the discussion was the separation of the survivor and the accused during statement recording, which was also highlighted as an ideal but rare practice. “I really liked the fact that there was a partition dividing the survivor and the accused,” Saneela noted.

Performance-wise, the podcast guests were unanimous in their praise. “Acting was phenomenal. I have no words for Saba Qamar, Faysal Qureshi,” the host said, also acknowledging performances by Junaid Khan, Amna Sheikh, Naveen Waqar, and Noorul Hassan. At one point, audience sentiment turned so strongly that “people started saying we hated the lawyer more than the accused,” Saneela stated.

The discussion also touched on how Case No. 9 addressed other sensitive realities, including religious manipulation and blasphemy accusations. Laiba pointed out that Rohit’s character arc reflected real-life scenarios where personal vendettas are weaponized. “This is not just a drama. In Pakistan, this [actually] happens.”

However, the conversation wasn’t without criticism. One major concern was the drama’s depiction of media trials. Referring to Shahzaib Khanzada’s fictionalized role, Laiba said firmly, “Setting up your own court is not something you should do as a journalist.” While acknowledging that journalists often keep everything on record for safety, she questioned the ethics of presenting evidence on television instead of in court. “That CCTV footage should have been presented in court, not on TV.”

Despite its flaws, the discussion was centered around the speakers agreeing on the fact that Case No. 9 succeeded in starting a conversation that Pakistani society often avoids. “This message needs to be hammered repeatedly,” Laiba said. “So that families and survivors know where they are being mistreated during the process.”