In response to an escalating online campaign targeting Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, the Supreme Court released a clarification on Thursday regarding a recent verdict involving a blasphemy accused.
The campaign gained momentum following Chief Justice Isa’s remarks in a blasphemy-related case, which surfaced online. In the judgement, CJP Isa underscored Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) duty to convey the Message without compelling belief.
Citing Quranic verses, the chief justice emphasised Islam’s fundamental tenets, notably the freedom of faith. “Sadly, in matters of religion, tempers flare up, and the Quranic mandate is forsaken,” CJP Isa remarked, acknowledging the sensitivity surrounding religious issues.
He made these observations while deciding a case involving the deletion of charges against a blasphemy accused, including Sections 7 and 9 of the Punjab Holy Qur’an (Printing and Recording) Act, 2011, as well as Sections 298-C and 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).
He stressed the need for caution in religious matters, noting that religious compulsion violates the Divine scheme of accountability. The court regretfully noted that emotions often override facts in cases related to religious offences.
The court granted bail to the petitioner, Mubarik Ahmed Sani, upon providing a personal bond of Rs5,000.
A press release issued by the top court addressed concerns regarding misreporting by the media, stating, “Misreporting of a Supreme Court decision on electronic, print and social media is creating a lot of misunderstandings and giving the impression that the Supreme Court has deviated from the Second Constitutional Amendment (definition of ‘Muslim’) and has called for the abolition of provisions on ‘crimes against religion’. This perception is completely wrong.”
The clarification from the court further explained, “In the concerned case, even if the allegations mentioned in the FIR are accepted as true, even then the provisions do not apply, adding that in such cases Section 5 of the Criminal Amendment Act, 1932 applies, under which publication of prohibited books can be punished with imprisonment for a maximum of 6 months.”
“Since the petitioner/accused had already spent more than one year in prison, the Supreme Court, keeping in view Islamic injunctions, constitutional provisions and the requirements of law and justice, ordered the release of the petitioner/accused on bail,” it added.
The statement continued to outline CJP Isa’s approach to judicial interpretation, stating that he tries to interpret all laws in accordance with Islamic rules, reasoning from the verses of the Holy Qur’an, the Hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), the decisions of the Caliphs, and the opinions of the jurists.
It further clarified, “If one believes that there has been a mistake in a judicial decision in the interpretation of an Islamic principle or a constitutional or legal provision, then it is the responsibility of the learned people to correct it and there are constitutional and legal avenues for it. The chief justice and the Supreme Court have not stopped anyone before from a review, nor will they stop it now.”
