Summary: Bail granted --- with Urdu Judgement --- Pending --- blasphemy case.

Summary: Acquittal --- ''Principle that laws cannot be applied retroactively to punish individuals for acts that were not offences at the time they were committed'' Pending --- blasphemy case.

Summary: Background: The petitioners were involved in a case registered under Section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA) along with Sections 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, 298-C, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The charges stemmed from the petitioners' use of a WhatsApp group to disseminate a banned translation of the Holy Quran, allegedly outraging religious sentiments and promoting sectarian hatred. During the trial, the petitioners moved to have the charges under the PPC dropped, citing a prior case (Sheraz Khan v. The State). However, the trial court dismissed the petition, leading to this revision. -----Issues: 1- Can the petitioners be tried under both PECA and PPC for the same transaction of events? -----2- Whether the petitioners’ actions fall under the jurisdiction of both PECA and PPC, and whether they can be charged and tried under both laws simultaneously. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the petitioners' actions constituted offenses under both PECA and the PPC, and they could be tried for both sets of offenses in the same trial. The court emphasized that Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) allows multiple offenses that arise from the same transaction to be tried together, even if they fall under different laws. The court found no merit in separating the offenses under PECA from those under the PPC because the allegations in the case, such as sharing a banned translation of the Quran via WhatsApp, formed part of the same transaction and were interlinked. As a result, trying the offenses separately could lead to conflicting decisions and unnecessary repetition. The court referenced Section 50 of PECA, which states that PECA’s provisions do not override the PPC, allowing the prosecution to proceed under both laws where applicable. The petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court’s decision. -----Citations/Precedents: Sheraz Khan v. The State (2022 P.Cr.L.J 203) ANF v. Muhammad Faizan and two others (PLD 2022 Lahore 700) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Sections 235(1), 235(2), 4(c)) Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Section 11, Section 28, Section 50)

Summary: Summary Pending --- blasphemy case.

Summary: Acquittal granted--- blasphemy case.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan—Art. 199—Writ jurisdiction—Enforcement of fundamental rights—Obligations of the State regarding Islamic injunctions and blasphemy laws—Scope and judicial review. The Islamabad High Court examined the alarming issue of blasphemous content disseminated through social media platforms, particularly Facebook, and its implications for Pakistan’s Islamic identity, constitutional obligations, and societal peace. The petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction seeking enforcement of State duties to safeguard Islamic tenets, prevent blasphemy, and regulate digital content in accordance with the law. The Court held that under Articles 2-A, 19, 31, and 227 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the State has an explicit obligation to protect the honor of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, the sanctity of religion, and the moral values of Islamic society. The State’s failure to fulfill these obligations invites judicial scrutiny and appropriate directions to enforce constitutional and statutory mandates. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)—Ss. 295, 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, 296, 298—Blasphemy and offenses against religion—Responsibility of State functionaries to prevent and prosecute such offenses—Directive to law enforcement agencies. The Court directed the Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior, and Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to take immediate, effective, and coordinated steps to identify and prosecute all individuals involved in the creation, promotion, or dissemination of blasphemous content. Emphasis was laid on the use of available legal instruments, including FIRs, prosecution under Sections 295 to 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and collaboration with international stakeholders for evidence and extradition, if necessary. The Court ordered strict enforcement of existing cybercrime and blasphemy laws to prevent exploitation of digital platforms for sacrilegious activities. (c) Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016—Ss. 20, 22, 37—Application to blasphemous content—Regulatory role of Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA)—Judicial oversight and accountability. The Court observed that PTA, under Section 37 of PECA 2016, is empowered to remove or block online content deemed offensive to religious sentiments or repugnant to Islamic values. The authority’s failure to promptly and effectively discharge its statutory functions was taken seriously. The Court directed PTA to establish a special cell dedicated to monitoring and blocking blasphemous content in real time, with a mechanism for public complaints and swift remedial action. (d) International cooperation—Mutual Legal Assistance—Request to international organizations and states to assist Pakistan in curbing blasphemy on global platforms. Recognizing the transnational nature of digital blasphemy, the Court urged the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to engage with Facebook, other social media platforms, and international organizations to ensure that such content is restricted or removed in compliance with Pakistan’s legal framework. The Court suggested that failure to cooperate may warrant blocking of the entire platform in Pakistan, as the honor of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ takes precedence over all conveniences of modern communication. (e) Judicial sensitivity—Status of the Holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ—Expression of reverence and solemnity in judicial reasoning. The Court devoted considerable space to expressing reverence for the finality and sanctity of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, stating unequivocally that any attack on his honor is the gravest possible offense for Muslims. The judgment reflected a deeply held view that love for the Prophet ﷺ is intrinsic to Islamic faith and Pakistani identity. The Court called for unity among all sects and schools of thought to defend the honor of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and condemned sectarianism, terrorism, and vigilantism under the guise of religion. (f) Public and institutional responsibilities—Role of citizens, civil society, and media—Call for awareness, unity, and proactive action. The Court invited religious scholars, intellectuals, journalists, and civil society to play their role in preserving religious harmony and countering blasphemous narratives. It emphasized that such an offense cannot be countered by individual action or vigilantism, but must be dealt with through lawful institutional mechanisms. Citizens were urged to lodge complaints with the authorities rather than taking law into their own hands. (g) Orders issued—Institutional coordination—Protective measures—Follow-up directives. FIA and PTA were directed to identify culprits and ensure their arrest, prosecution, and punishment under relevant provisions of law. A dedicated task force was ordered to be constituted for ongoing monitoring and enforcement. Ministry of Foreign Affairs was directed to take diplomatic steps with host countries of social media platforms. Secretary Ministry of Interior was directed to submit periodic compliance reports to the Court. A follow-up hearing was scheduled to assess the progress of implementation. Disposition: Petition allowed with specific and binding directions issued to the Federation, PTA, FIA, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ensure comprehensive implementation of the blasphemy laws and digital content regulations.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan----Arts. 19, 20, 25, 260(3), and Ordinance XX of 1984Challenge to the Constitutionality of Ordinance XX of 1984 – Whether Ordinance XX of 1984, which imposed restrictions on the religious practices of Ahmadis, was ultra vires the Constitution – Petitioners contended that the Ordinance violated their fundamental rights under Arts. 19 (freedom of speech), 20 (freedom of religion), and 25 (equality before the law) – The Supreme Court examined whether the Ordinance contradicted constitutional guarantees and whether the State had the power to restrict religious expression of a minority group – Court held that Article 20 was "subject to law," meaning the State could legislate to maintain public order and morality – Held, that restrictions imposed by Ordinance XX of 1984 were valid as they aligned with the constitutional definition of a "Muslim" under Art. 260(3) – Ordinance XX was not in derogation of fundamental rights but rather an enforcement of constitutional provisions defining religious identity – Petitions dismissed.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) & Ordinance XX of 1984----S. 298-B & S. 298-CCriminalization of Ahmadis’ Religious Practices – Petitioners were convicted under S. 298-C, PPC for wearing badges with Kalma Tayyaba and referring to their places of worship as ‘Masjid’ – Whether such actions constituted "posing as a Muslim" under the law – Court observed that Ahmadis, by referring to themselves as Muslims or using Islamic expressions, violated Ordinance XX of 1984 – Held, that provisions of S. 298-B and S. 298-C, PPC were not vague or oppressive and were constitutionally justified – However, clauses (c) and (d) of S. 298-C, which restricted Ahmadis from preaching or propagating their faith, were declared ultra vires to fundamental rights.(c) Fundamental Rights & Religious Freedom----Arts. 19, 20 & 25Limits on Religious Expression – Petitioners argued that their right to profess and propagate religion was being curtailed – Court examined whether the restrictions imposed by Ordinance XX of 1984 were justified – Held, that the State had the power to regulate religious practices to prevent public disorder and protect the sentiments of the majority – Further held, that religious expression could not be allowed to "deceive or mislead" the public regarding religious identity – Ordinance XX was upheld, except for portions of S. 298-C that restricted peaceful propagation of religious beliefs.(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 144Prohibition on Public Celebrations by Ahmadis – The Punjab Government issued orders under S. 144, CrPC, preventing Ahmadis in Jhang from public religious celebrations – Whether such a prohibition was legally justified – Court held that prohibitions were necessary to maintain public order and prevent potential unrest – The order extending the restrictions indefinitely was struck down as lacking legal authority – However, temporary restrictions to maintain peace were deemed lawful.Cited Cases:• Mujibur Rehman v. Federal Government of Pakistan PLD 1985 FSC 8• Capt. (Retd.) Abdul Wajid v. Federal Government of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 167• Jibendra Kishore Achharyya Chowdhury v. Province of East Pakistan PLD 1957 SC 9• Miss Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 416• Abdur Rahman Mobashir v. Syed Amir Ali Shah Bokhari PLD 1978 Lahore 113

Summary: Sentence reduced---Background: The petitioners were convicted under section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for wearing badges of "Kalma Tayyabba" while being Ahmadis. The trial court sentenced them to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, with an additional one-month imprisonment in default of payment. The petitioners appealed, but the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta dismissed their appeals. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in law by disposing of the appeals through a common judgment. 2- Whether the charge put to the petitioners was defective. 3- Whether wearing a badge of "Kalma Tayyabba" by Ahmadis constitutes an offense under section 298-C, PPC. 4- Whether the legislative intent of section 298-C, PPC was correctly interpreted. 5- Whether the petitioners' actions demonstrated mens rea (criminal intent). The validity of Ordinance XX of 1984 under which sections 298-B and 298-C were added to the PPC. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Common Judgment: The court held that while each case must be disposed of separately, a common judgment is not illegal if it adequately addresses the material and evidence for each individual. The appellate court’s judgment met these requirements and did not violate sections 367 and 424 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). --Defective Charge: The court found no substantial inconsistency between the charges framed and the questions put under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioners were aware of the allegations against them, and their defense was not prejudiced by any discrepancy. --Constitution of Offense: The court held that wearing a badge of "Kalma Tayyabba" by Ahmadis falls within the ambit of section 298-C, PPC, as it constitutes posing as Muslims, which is prohibited. The legislative intent was clear in prohibiting Ahmadis from adopting Islamic symbols. --Interpretation of Section 298-C, PPC: The court interpreted section 298-C, PPC, in line with the legislative intent to prevent Ahmadis from posing as Muslims or adopting Islamic symbols. The section was found to be unambiguous and independent of section 298-B, PPC. --Mens Rea: The court determined that the petitioners' intention was to pose as Muslims, as they wore badges of "Kalma Tayyabba" in public. This act indicated criminal intent, fulfilling the mens rea requirement. --Validity of Ordinance XX of 1984: The court acknowledged that the vires (legal validity) of Ordinance XX of 1984 could not be challenged in its revisional jurisdiction. The Federal Shariat Court had already upheld the ordinance, making its provisions binding on the High Court. The court dismissed the petitions but reduced the sentences from one year to nine months of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the fine of Rs. 1,000. The court appreciated the assistance provided by the counsel and amicus curiae in the case. ----Citations/Precedents: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Sections 223, 342, 367, 424, 439 Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Sections 298-B, 298-C Relevant Case Law Raja Muhammad v. The State, PLD 1965 Karachi 637 Gul Sher v. The State, PLD 1963 Karachi 598 Tahir v. The State, 1968 P Cr. L J 465 Syed Abdul Waheed v. The State, 1968 P Cr. L J 776 Kalubepari v. The State, PLD 1958 Dacca 549 S.A. Haroon v. Collector of Customs, Karachi, PLD 1959 S C (Pak.) 177 Khizar Hayat v. Commissioner Sargodha Division and others, PLD 1965 Lah. 349 Qasu and others v. The State, PLD 1969 Lah. 48 Ch. Khadim Hussain v. The State, PLD 1985 S C (AJ&K) 125 State v. Zia-ur-Rehman and others, PLD 1973 S C 49

Summary: Pending --- blasphemy case.

Summary: Pending --- blasphemy case.