Geo’s ‘Case No. 9’ Sparks Debate After Key Legal Scene on Justice Mansoor Ali Shah Removed from YouTube

The popular Geo Entertainment drama Case No. 9 has found itself at the center of a heated discussion after a powerful courtroom scene from Episode 17 was removed from the YouTube upload—despite being aired during the original television broadcast. The drama, starring Saba Qamar, Aaminah Sheikh, and Faysal Quraishi, has been praised for its bold storytelling, but this incident has raised eyebrows and triggered questions about censorship and editorial decisions.

The scene in question involved a crucial exchange between Aaminah Sheikh’s character, Beenish, who represents Saba Qamar’s character Seher, during an intense court confrontation. When Faysal Quraishi’s character attempts to discredit Seher by targeting her marital status and character, Beenish responds with a strong, fact-based argument referencing landmark judicial rulings.

In the original aired version, Beenish quotes legal judgments by Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, highlighting how both judges have contributed to progressive legal thinking—especially in cases involving women. The line that reportedly sparked controversy was when she stated:

“Had the 26th Constitutional Amendment not been passed, blocking his way, he would have been our country’s chief justice.”

The opposing counsel then responds with a witty reference to Ghalib and reminds the courtroom that parliament, being the supreme authority, passed the amendment democratically.

However, when viewers went to rewatch the episode on YouTube the next morning, this entire exchange was gone. The edited version skipped directly to the next scene, confusing many who had seen it live. Journalist Shahzeb Khanzada later posted the unedited clip on X, confirming that the TV version indeed contained this politically sensitive moment.

To understand why the removal has sparked such discussion, it’s important to look at the background of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, passed in October 2024. This amendment:

• Removed the Supreme Court’s suo motu powers

• Limited the chief justice’s term to three years

• Gave the prime minister the authority to appoint the chief justice from a panel of the three senior-most judges

Previously, the senior-most judge automatically became the chief justice—meaning Justice Mansoor Ali Shah was on track for the position. Critics, especially within legal circles and the PTI, argued that the amendment was specifically drafted to block his elevation. Justice Shah resigned just last week after the passage of the 27th Amendment, further fueling public debate.

Case No. 9 has been widely appreciated for its blunt and honest portrayal of the hurdles rape survivors face in Pakistan’s legal system. Episode 17 was particularly powerful for its emphasis on judicial reasoning around women’s rights. Justice Ayesha Malik’s stance—especially that a woman’s past relationships should never be used to judge her character in sexual violence cases—was highlighted in an impactful way.

Because of this context, the sudden removal of a legally and socially relevant scene has prompted speculation: Was it a technical edit, a legal precaution, or quiet censorship?

While the channel has not officially commented, the debate continues online. Many viewers believe that if dramas like Case No. 9 are brave enough to take on sensitive topics, their content should remain intact across all platforms.

One thing is clear: Case No. 9 has once again succeeded in sparking an important national conversation—both inside and outside the courtroom.