ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court accepting the federal government’s petition expunged the objectionable paras from its order dated February 6 and judgment of July 24, 2024, delivered in Mubarak Sani case.

A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, on Thursday, heard the federal and the Punjab government’s petitions.

The short order said that the expunged paras cannot not be cited as precedent. The trial court asked to decide Mubarak Sani’s case in accordance with the law.

Religious parties protest against SC verdict in Sani case

During the proceeding, Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, appeared before the Court through video-link from Turkiye, President Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Raees Darulfita Darul Uloom Ghosia Mufti Sher Muhammad Khan, Chief Khateeb Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Maulana Muhammad Tayyib Qureshi, President Milli Yakjehti Council Sahibzada Abul Khair Muhammad Zubair, and Maulana Dr Ata ur Rehman of Jamia Tafheemul Quran, Mardan appeared in-person.

Syed Jawad Ali Naqvi, appeared through video-link from Lahore, Dr Farid Ahmed Paracha appeared on behalf of Hafiz Naeem ur Rehman, Mufti Syed Habib ul Haq Shah on behalf of Mufti Munib ur Rehman, Advocate Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmed on behalf of Professor Sajid Mir, and Mufti Abdur Rasheed on behalf of Maulana Muhammad Ijaz Mustafa.

The chief justice had invited the religious scholars to review and “point out mistakes” in his July 24 verdict on the Mubarak Ahmad Sani case

At the outset of the hearing, AGP Awan informed the bench that the Parliament and some clerics had asked the federal government to approach the SC regarding the matter.

He further said that a letter was received from the NA speaker and directives were also issued by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. He admitted that a “second review” of the original verdict could not be held, but said, therefore, the government had approached the court as per the Code of Civil Procedure.

AGP Awan urged the court to hear clerics’ arguments since the matter was a religious one.

“I don’t want to say but am helpless; I pray in every prayer that may God not make me make any wrong decision,” CJP Faez said. “A person is known by their actions and words,” he observed.

The chief justice stressed that the Parliament’s words were highly respected by the court.

The court then decided to seek assistance from clerics present in the courtroom, including Fazl, Mufti Sher Muhammad, Sahibzada Abul Khair Muhammad Zubair of the Milli Yakjehti Council and Jamaat-e-Islami’s Fareed Paracha.

CJP Faez then noted that the court had also sought assistance from Mufti Taqi Usmani but he was in Turkiye. Therefore, the scholar joined via video link. Mufti Muneeb ur Rehman’s representative was also present.

Justice Faez then asked Fazl to state before the court if there were any “mistakes or objections” to the judgment in the case, adding that he would listen to others as well.

Mufti Taqi Usmani urged the court to omit paragraphs 7 and 42 from the July 24 revised judgment. He pointed out what he said were mistakes in those paragraphs.

“Taqi Usmani Sahib, I apologise. I want to clarify that those who were issued notices had submitted many documents to us. If we had reviewed them in detail, then perhaps an entire book would have been made out of that decision,” the CJP said.

“I could not review all those documents, which is my mistake. Point out the mistakes and your objections to the court order to us. If we do not understand something, we will ask,” the top judge added.

Justice Faez observed that Pakistan was an Islamic Republic; hence the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet’s (PBUH) a hadith were referred to in court orders. “I am not above any mistake,” CJP Faez acknowledged. He observed that “lengthy verdicts” were needed to be written in such matters.

Mufti Usmani said, “You should have given more time to the real issue than the issues decided in the order.”

Maulana Fazl stated that the court had so far held “many hearings” and now was having a “review” of its decision. At this, Justice Faez pointed out that it was not a “review”, to which, the JUI-F chief replied that it was a “third view” of the court’s decision.

Fazl highlighted that various scholars and the CII had come forward with their opinions against the SC’s ruling. Noting that Fazl had used the plural form of “decision”, CJP Faez asked him if there were more verdicts under consideration. To this, Fazl asked the court to ignore the use of the plural.

On February 6, a two-judge bench, headed by CJP Qazi Faez, overturned the conviction of Mubarak Sani, who was accused of an offence in 2019 under the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording) (Amendment) Act.

In its judgment, the court noted that the offence that the defendant had been accused of was not criminalised till 2021. Consequently, the apex court set aside the conviction and ordered the immediate release of the petitioner.

This led to what the government and the legal community termed a “malicious and slanderous campaign” against the CJP, even prompting the Supreme Court to issue a clarification.

The decision was subsequently challenged by the Punjab government on the grounds that paragraph 9 of the order, regarding Article 20 of the Constitution, needed to be modified as the rights of the citizens as envisaged under the provision were not absolute and instead subject to law, public order, and morality.

The apex court on July 24 reportedly declared that the right to profess religion and religious freedom, as ensured by the Constitution, was subject to law, morality, and public order.

The judgment had emphasised that complete faith in the finality of the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) was the very foundation of Islam — a belief without which nobody can be described as a Muslim.

Various groups, including religio-political parties, have voiced their objections by carrying out rallies and even breaching the apex court’s security as they held protests.

The matter was discussed in the National Assembly by both the treasury and opposition benches.

On August 17, the Punjab government filed an application seeking corrections that some clerics deemed were needed in the SC July 24, judgment.

Some leading clerics and members of parliament had requested the federal government to approach SC and highlight some portions of the verdict that they say merited correction. The application explains that some observations and findings contained in some other paragraphs of the judgment appeared to be an accidental error and contrary to the Supreme Court judgments.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024