Editor
ISLAMABAD:
In an unprecedented transfer, the Supreme Court on Thursday amended its February 6, 2024 order and July 24 verdict within the Mubarak Sani case, expunging all controversial paragraphs.
The apex court docket accepted the federal authorities’s miscellaneous utility for amendments within the case’s evaluation determination.
The court docket dominated that the expunged paragraphs can’t be used as judicial precedent sooner or later.
Religious students, together with JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Mufti Taqi Usmani and others urged the court docket to take away paragraphs 7, 42, and 49-C from the decision, citing issues over the interpretation of proselytisation.
The Mubarak Sani case pertains to an Ahmadi man who was granted bail on February 6, 2024 by a three-member bench of the apex court docket led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa.
Sani had been accused of an offence in 2019 and subsequently convicted beneath the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording) (Amendment) Act, 2021.
The bench famous that the offence with which the defendant was charged had not been criminalised till 2021. As a consequence, Sani was granted bail, and his rapid launch was ordered. Following this determination, a marketing campaign was launched in opposition to Chief Justice Isa, regardless of the Supreme Court issuing a clarification relating to the order.
The Punjab authorities rapidly filed a evaluation petition in opposition to the February 6 order, arguing that paragraph 9 of the order, which pertained to Article 20 of the Constitution, wanted modification to make clear that the rights of residents, as envisaged within the Constitution, should not absolute however are topic to legislation, public order, and morality.
On July 24, the Supreme Court accepted the Punjab authorities’s evaluation petition and declared that the appropriate to profess faith and non secular freedom, as assured by the Constitution, was topic to legal guidelines, morality, and public order.
However, some spiritual and political events stay unhappy and initiated protests in opposition to the order.
The Council of Islamic Ideology additionally raised issues, urging the court docket to rethink its determination.
On August 18, federal authorities approached the Supreme Court, looking for elimination of sure parts from its July 24 order within the case.
In its utility, the federal authorities argued that some observations and findings within the judgment look like unintentional errors, opposite to the precedents set by the court docket in its judgment within the titled prison evaluation petition. “Therefore, these parts of the judgment within the titled prison evaluation petition advantage correction by this court docket,” the applying acknowledged.
The court docket had sought the help of spiritual students, together with Mufti Taqi Usmani and Maulana Fazlur Rehman, on the matter.
The chief justice requested the students to determine errors within the determination. The students requested both a revision of the ruling or its annulment.
On Thursday, a three-member bench led by chief justice, and comprising Justice Aminud Din Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan heard the federal authorities’s enchantment.
Mufti Taqi Usmani forwarded his suggestions through video hyperlink from Turkiye whereas Maulana Fazl and different spiritual students have been current within the court docket.
At the outset of the listening to, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan knowledgeable the court docket that the federal authorities had filed the miscellaneous utility on the directives of the prime minister.
Fazl requested the court docket to restrict its position to granting bail.
On one event, when one of many respondents, Jawad Ali Naqvi, who appeared through video hyperlink from Lahore, mentioned that judges mustn’t take determination beneath strain, the highest decide responded that the “day I really feel I pressured I’ll go residence”.
Senior lawyer Latif Khosa then appeared earlier than the court docket and requested that his and Sunni Ittehad Council chief Sahibzada Hamid Raza’s names be added to the listing of respondents as effectively.
“We are representing the parliamentary committee and the Parliament,” Khosa mentioned.
“Khosa sahib, parliament has an incredible authority. Parliament may even strike down court docket orders. You may even get the choice struck down by the parliament,” the highest decide mentioned.
Another respondent, Hafiz Ahsaan Khokhar, who appeared earlier than the court docket on behalf of Prof Sajid Mir, mentioned that as a substitute of expunging the paragraphs, the court docket ought to problem a brand new order.
He famous that additional confusion could be created if any of the paragraphs weren’t expunged, including that the court docket ought to start correcting the Mubarak Sani case from its preliminary determination.
Supporting Hafiz Ahsaan’s standpoint, Fazl took the podium and acknowledged that it might be applicable for the court docket to annul each verdicts within the case.
The JUI-F chief acknowledged that he didn’t need anybody to use the anomaly within the court docket’s determination, including that each one the ulema would agree on this level.
In his arguments, Fazl famous that the court docket was now having a second evaluation of its determination. The high decide replied that it was not a second evaluation to which the JUI-F chief replied that then it might be a “evaluation”.
“Now on the age of 72, I’m standing earlier than a court docket for the primary time,” Fazl mentioned, noting that God had saved him “protected from courts”. “We should not that dangerous,” the chief justice quipped in response. “Your father, Mufti Mahmood, visited our home to supply condolences on the dying of my father.”
Fazl then lamented that regardless of parliament establishing a committee in 1974 to declare Ahmadis non-Muslims, the committee’s determination has but to be revealed on parliament’s web site.
The chief justice replied that it might be an “interference” if he mentioned something to the Parliament.
Later, the apex court docket issued a brief written order within the case.
The order acknowledged that the federal authorities had filed a miscellaneous utility for amending the court docket’s July 24 verdict, noting {that a} unanimous decision had additionally been handed for this objective in parliament. The ulema expressed reservations on a number of paragraphs of the impugned judgment.
The brief order mentioned that the court docket, amending the February 6 order and July 24 verdict, expunged the impugned paragraphs.
The court docket ordered that the expunged paragraphs not be used as judicial precedent sooner or later.
It additional mentioned that the trial court docket ought to resolve this case in accordance with the legislation with out being affected by these paragraphs.
The apex court docket acknowledged that it might problem an in depth verdict within the case later.
