Islamabad High Court’s Controversial Ruling: Commission to Review All Blasphemy Cases Amid Biased Proceedings
Yesterday, the Islamabad High Court set a deplorable precedent for justice. The judge ordered the formation of a commission to review all blasphemy cases filed to date. Lawyers supporting the commission argued that it would examine all 767 blasphemy cases registered so far, effectively casting doubt on every such case across the country following the court’s decision.
During the hearing of the writ petition, several remarks by the judge were highly controversial. These included suggestions to assess the intent of the accused even if blasphemy was proven and a proposal to observe a blasphemer for 15 days to “counsel” them. The judge also remarked that individuals labeled as anti-state by institutions are often truthful. Furthermore, the judge stated that artificial intelligence (AI) bots could generate thousands of blasphemous images and insert them into people’s mobile phones.
The court proceedings were conducted in a manner reminiscent of Justice Munir’s investigation into the “Punjab Riots” in the Lahore High Court, which favored the Qadiani community. It felt as though a scene read about in books was unfolding live, with only the characters changed.
During the third hearing, the judge ordered the formation of a commission after the petitioner’s lawyers presented their case. When the opposing lawyers objected, the judge became visibly angry. After some back-and-forth, the opposing side was allowed to present arguments, clearly explaining why the commission could not be formed. However, the judge interrupted their arguments, allowing the petitioner’s lawyers to present further material in rebuttal and ordering the proceedings to be live-streamed.
blasphemy business group
For the next 21 days, the court proceedings were broadcast live, during which a propaganda campaign was waged in the courtroom against the complainants and lawyers of blasphemy cases. The opposing lawyers repeatedly objected, stating that the videos and images presented were fabricated and demanded forensic analysis. They also argued that the statistics and statements presented in court were false. However, the judge dismissed their objections, instructing them not to interrupt the other side’s arguments and promising them a fair chance to respond later. This led to several heated exchanges, resulting in the cancellation of the licenses of three opposing lawyers and the issuance of contempt of court notices to over 21 lawyers and two complainants. Several complainants were also expelled from the courtroom.
A request was made to form a larger bench due to the case’s public importance, but the judge rejected it. Meanwhile, the judge praised the petitioner’s lawyer, Imaan Mazari, and her husband, proposing honorary positions and awards for them. At their request, the judge summoned various records from institutions, including phone call detail records (CDRs), and even had some individuals’ identity cards blocked. On one occasion, when the petitioner’s lawyer reported issues with the live stream, the judge halted proceedings until the broadcast was fixed.
The petitioner’s lawyers presented material related to ten cases. When they sought more time, the opposing side was finally allowed to present arguments. However, on the first day of their arguments, the live stream malfunctioned. That day, Advocate John Muhammad, representing the opposition, disproved material presented in one case based on the record. On the second day of the opposing lawyers’ arguments, as Advocate John Muhammad presented a case brief to the judge, the judge stopped further examination of the petitioner’s material, stating satisfaction with it and deeming it sufficient to form the commission. This occurred despite nine opposing lawyers not having started their arguments and the lawyers of the cases presented over the 21 days wanting to bring the true facts to the judge’s attention.
The opposing lawyers argued that they would now have to present their rebuttal to the commission itself. They pleaded that the court had given the petitioner 21 days to present their case live on the court’s platform without allowing objections to their material. This, they claimed, had created a false narrative on social media. They requested an opportunity to clarify the truth and respond to the presented material before a final decision, but the judge outright refused. That day, another opposing lawyer was issued a contempt of court notice.
According to the lawyers, the hearing process appeared blatantly unjust, with the court exhibiting a clearly biased attitude. They believe such one-sided decisions are typically overturned in higher forums. Once the written order is received, the decision is expected to be challenged, and the commission order is likely to be declared void after a few hearings.
Read More