Claim: In a 6 February judgement on a blasphemy case, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa (1) acquitted the accused without any punishment; (2) ordered the deletion of Section 295-B from the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC); (3) permitted Ahmadis to print their own holy book; and (4) allowed Ahmadis to openly preach their religion.
Fact: Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa did not order the repeal of any laws pertaining to blasphemy, nor did he change any laws pertaining to the religious practices of the Ahmadi community. The accused was not acquitted without any punishment; he was released on bail after spending thirteen months in prison.
Background
On 6 February 2024, a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Musarrat Hilali, and headed by CJP Qazi Faez Isa delivered a verdict on a case (Criminal Petition No. 1054-L/2023) involving the distribution of allegedly proscribed religious literature. In the aftermath of the ruling, social media was abuzz with various interpretations of the decision.
On 19 February 2024, the Daily Jang ran a headline stating, “سپریم کورٹ کا توہینِ قرآن اور قادیانیت کی ترویج کی دفعات نکالنے کا حکم [Translation: The Supreme Court has ordered the removal of provisions for disrespecting the Quran and the promotion of Qadianism]”. The Daily Ausaf also carried the story with the same headline on 20 February.
Many people shared screenshots of Daily Ausaf and Daily Jang’s newspaper clippings and online stories, further fueling the controversy on social media.
Well-known journalist Javed Chaudhry’s page posted an article on Facebook with a headline stating that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had ordered the deletion of provisions from the law that deal with “disrespect to the Quran and promotion of Qadianism”.
An X (formerly Twitter) user claimed that Section 295-B (which deals with blasphemy) has been abolished and hence the Chief Justice “has given permission to the Qadianis to print their own Qur’an”.
Another X user @rahmanak747 claimed that CJP Isa released an accused in a case involving the distribution of allegedly banned literature.
Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman, and the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), also spread false claims about the court’s order. Rehman criticised Justice Isa’s decision to allow Ahmadis to preach their religion, terming it as against Shariah and the Constitution. He also rejected the verdict and stated that the Quranic references given in the decision are incorrect. JI argued that the court’s recent observations deviate from established constitutional and jurisprudential norms concerning the freedom of faith of the Ahmadis. They believe the court’s order may have been influenced by inadvertence and inadequate assistance on the subject.
Mufti Taqi Usmani also weighed in on the matter. He found many aspects of the court’s decision objectionable and said that the court should review the decision, especially the points related to the release of the accused and the unnecessary discussion in paragraphs 6 to 10, which this fact-check refers to under Claim 3. He reassured Muslims that the decision does not change the established Shariah, constitutional, and legal stance on Ahmadis, and there is no need for concern.
Many protestors from different religious parties, led by Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan (TLP), protested on 23 February against what they deemed “blasphemous remarks” by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa in the verdict, according to a report by Reuters.
The controversy regarding the decision became so widespread that the Supreme Court itself eventually released a clarification regarding the decision.
Fact or Fiction?
On 6 February 2024, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, issued a judgement ordering the release of a person accused of distributing allegedly proscribed religious literature. The FIR was filed against the accused on 6 December 2022, at the Chenab Nagar Police Station, District Chiniot in Punjab. The case involved the removal of charges against the petitioner, Mubarik Ahmed Sani, including Sections 7 and 9 of the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording) Act, 2011, as well as Sections 298-C and 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The court granted bail to Sani upon providing a personal bond of Rs 5,000.
It’s important to note that the ruling is specific to this case and does not alter or repeal any current laws concerning religious matters in Pakistan.
Distilling various claims about the judgement that are circulating online, Soch Fact Check investigated the veracity of the four main claims by referring to the relevant sections of the judgement, and by asking legal experts to weigh in.
Claim 1: Ahmadis have been given permission to print their own holy book.
Fact 1: No such permission has been given.
The relevant paragraphs of the judgement, paragraphs 2 and 3 are reproduced below.
As can be seen from the paragraphs above, the order specifically clarifies that the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording) (Amendment) Act of 2021 does not apply to the case of the distribution of the proscribed book Tafseer-e-Sagheer because the alleged incident occurred two years before the law was promulgated and, as stated in the judgement, it is unconstitutional for a law to be retroactively applied. In other words, the law was not struck down, it simply did not apply to this case because it didn’t exist at the time the offence allegedly took place.
Our analysis was validated by a number of legal experts including Usama Khawar, Constitutional Lawyer and Visiting Professor of Law at LUMS, Zahrah Vayani, Founder of Zahrah S. Vayani & Associates, and legal analyst Hassan Qaiser.
Khawar reiterated the Supreme Court clarification.
The Supreme Court judgement does not indicate that “Ahmadis have been given explicit permission to print their own Qur’an” and in fact “there is no mention” of it. He said that the judgement primarily focuses on the legal technicalities of the case “particularly regarding the timing of the offence, amendments in the law, and inapplicability of the amendments in law to the case of the accused” against Mubarik Ahmed Sani who was accused of distributing a proscribed book, Tafseer-e-Sagheer, without mentioning “the religion of the accused. Ahmadis or Qadianis are not mentioned”.
Barrister Zahrah Sehr Vayani, Founder of Zahrah S. Vayani & Associates, refutes the claim, stating that the judgement specifically addresses the principle that “if a law is passed after a crime committed, then that law or the punishment in that law cannot be applied retrospectively” which was the case in this matter.
Hassan Qaiser, a Legal Analyst, highlights the ambiguity in the judgement. He said that it acquits the accused on the basis that the “offences mentioned are not attracted to the petitioner because they are not framed in the charge,” and that it suggests in discussions about constitutional articles, Article 20, 21 and 22, “that religious groups should be able to profess and propagate their religion”. However, Qaiser argued that there is no discussion on how this aligns with sections of the PPC “which prohibit Ahmadis from professing their faith/propagating it”.
In addition, Supreme Court Advocate Salman Akram Raja and ICJ Advisor Reema Omer have also gone on record to state that the judgement made no mention of Ahmadis being allowed to print their holy book.
Claim 2: Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) has been abolished.
Fact 2: Section 295-B of the PPC has not been abolished.
Paragraph 4 and 5 of the judgement states:
It’s important to note that Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) has not been eliminated or repealed from Pakistani law. The order emphasises that neither the First Information Report (FIR) nor the police report (challan) allege any actions by the accused, Mubarik Ahmed Sani, that would constitute offences under Section 298-C and 295-B of the PPC. As a result, neither of these sections of the PPC can be applied in this particular case.
Khawar emphasised that the mention of deleting Section 295-B of the PPC from the charges against the accused in the judgement does not “necessarily imply that Section 295-B of PPC has been abolished or deleted from the law book altogether”. The removal of this section from Sani’s charges “is specific to his case, and does not constitute a blanket abolition of the law itself”, he added. According to Khawar, the court found that the charges under Section 298-C and 295-B were not supported by the FIR and the evidence presented in this particular case.
Qaiser reiterated this point, emphasising that while “Section 295-B has not been repealed, it has been deleted from the charge framed against the petitioner, which means that the petitioner will no longer be charged for committing the crime” under this section.
Vayani concurred, stating that “Section 295-B of the PPC has not been abolished”.
Raja echoed the same, clarifying that as far as 295-B and 298-C are concerned, while the Penal Code of Pakistan criminalises disrespecting the Holy Quran or promoting “Qadianism”, the judge noted that these accusations were absent in the FIR and the evidence for the accusations was lacking during the investigation. Hence the case could not proceed on these grounds.
Furthermore, the advocate stressed that the judge’s decision was specific to this case, and it did not entail the removal of any legal clauses or sections from Pakistan’s existing laws.
Reema Omer said that it’s important to note that no religious laws were abolished. She added that there was no indication of any conflict with Islam or the Constitution nor was the Second Amendment referenced or revoked by the court.
Claim 3: Ahmadis can now openly preach their religion.
Fact 3: Chief Justice Isa did not change any existing Pakistani laws that restrict Ahmadis’ religious practices, preaching, and distribution of religious material.
Paragraph 6 to 9 of the judgement are as follows:
The judgement emphasises principles of religious freedom and warns against coercion in matters of faith. However, it does not revoke existing Pakistani laws that restrict Ahmadis’ religious practices, preaching, and distribution of religious material.
Khawar said that while the judgement elaborates on Quranic verses and invokes constitutional provisions safeguarding religious freedom, it does not “explicitly state that Ahmadis can openly preach their religion without restrictions” rather” it calls for adherence to constitutional rights and principles derived from Islamic scripture”.
“Therefore, any assertion regarding the open preaching by Ahmadis should be approached within the legal and constitutional framework outlined in the judgement, ensuring a nuanced understanding of religious freedom and its legal implications in Pakistan,” the lawyer added.
Qaiser added to this by highlighting the ambiguity in the judgement. “While it does seem to suggest that constitutional safeguards should extend to all religious groups, it does not discuss/mention the status of Ahmadis as a special group and how the constitutional stipulations interact with the explicit restrictions on them,” he said.
Vayani emphasised the importance of the judgement in upholding the right to express religious views and receive a fair trial, especially for religious minorities. “The judgement is actually very clear and abides by the law,” she said.
According to Reema Omer, Article 20 of the constitution which safeguards freedom of religion, complemented by Article 22, and various Quranic verses emphasising “no compulsion in religion”, were mentioned in the order. Omer said that unfortunately emotional reactions often cloud our judgement in matters of religion in our country. The court addressed this discrepancy by highlighting the alignment between our constitution and religious teachings, she added. According to Omer, the order notably highlights the pervasive misuse and misunderstanding of both, as well as the state’s emotional response to religious matters.
Claim 4: The accused was acquitted and released without any punishment.
Fact 4: The accused was not acquitted: he was released on bail after having already spent 13 months in prison, although he was only entitled to a maximum punishment of six months.
The relevant paragraphs of the judgement are reproduced as under.
The accused was not released without any punishment. The order suggests that the accused was granted bail only. He had already served 13 months in jail although he was entitled to a maximum punishment of six months as per Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment, 1932, concerning dissemination of banned material, which is applicable in this case.
According to the judgement, the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording) (Amendment) Act, 2o21 did not apply to the case of the accused because it was promulgated two years after the offence was alleged to have taken place, and the charges in the FIR did not describe offences under 295-C and 298-B. Instead, according to the judgement, the crime of disseminating proscribed documents described in the FIR falls under Section 5 of the Criminal Amendment Act, 1932. That crime has a maximum prison sentence of six months.
Khawar highlighted that the accused served “twice the maximum punishment without any trial or legal determination of his guilt” although he was “entitled to a maximum punishment of six months”. He added that it is possible that if the accused is acquitted after the trial, he would have served twice the maximum punishment, without any recourse for the time served in prison.
Qaiser explained that since the charges under 295-B and 298-C of the PPC were deleted and the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording) Act, 2011 came into place after the petitioner allegedly committed the act in 2019, he “could not be jailed under those” provisions. He said that additionally, the maximum punishment under another possible charge, Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, was six months and the petitioner has “already served more than 13 months of imprisonment under trial, which is more than double the time of the sentence”, and that he should be set free under Article 9, 10 and 4 of the Constitution.
Vayani supported this argument and stated that it’s in the interest of justice to release someone who has “already been in jail for the length of the sentence in which punishment has been awarded for the crime committed”. In this case, the accused served a longer sentence than the law prescribed, and thus, he was released on bail, she added.
According to Omer, the court also recognised the applicability of the Criminal Law Amendment, 1932, concerning dissemination of banned material, even though it was not mentioned in the FIR. Given the maximum punishment was six months according to this law, and the accused had spent 13 months in detention, the court has granted bail citing the disparity between the detention period and the potential punishment, she said.
Supreme Court’s Clarification
On 22 February, the Supreme Court issued a clarification about the aforementioned case’s verdict, after misreporting by the media and an “organised campaign”, particularly on social media, against the Chief Justice of Pakistan. According to the statement, the court denied that it has “deviated from the Second Constitutional Amendment (definition of ‘Muslim’)” or “has called for the abolition of provisions on ‘crimes against religion’”.
The clarification also stated that in this case, “Section 5 of the Criminal Amendment Act, 1932 applies, under which publication of prohibited books can be punished with imprisonment for a maximum of six months” and since the “petitioner/accused has already spent more than one year in prison,” the court ordered his release on “bail”.
Virality:
On 19 February 2024, Daily Jang published a story with the headline, “سپریم کورٹ کا توہینِ قرآن اور قادیانیت کی ترویج کی دفعات نکالنے کا حکم [Translation: The Supreme Court has ordered the removal of provisions for disrespecting the Quran and the promotion of Qadianism]”.
The story was also printed by Daily Ausaf with the same headline on 20 February.
Daily Pakistan, Lahore International, JavedCh.Com and Roshan Pakistan News also published the story with similar headlines.
Geo News Urdu also carried the report. However, they specified that the story was only about a particular case. Even though the article can no longer be found on its website, Soch Fact Check took a screenshot as evidence of its publication.
On X, the claim can be found here, here and here.
It was found here, here, here, here and here on Facebook.
Conclusion: Viral claims that Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s judgement on a blasphemy case grants permission to Ahmadis to print their own holy book, that Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code was repealed, that Ahmadis can now openly preach their religion, and that the accused was released without punishment are all unsubstantiated.
Background images in cover photo: Reuters
Design: Soch Fact Check
To appeal against our fact-check, please send an email to appeals@sochfactcheck.com