Islamabad, July 24, 2025: A two-member bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday suspended a single-bench ruling that had directed the federal government to establish a commission to investigate the alleged misuse of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.
The division bench, comprising Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro and Justice Azam Khan, issued the stay order after hearing intra-court appeals filed against the earlier decision by Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan.
The original judgment, delivered by Justice Sardar Ejaz, had directed the federal government to form a fact-finding commission within 30 days to probe whether blasphemy laws were being misused. The ruling came after daily hearings on petitions filed by more than 100 relatives of individuals accused or convicted under blasphemy charges. Many of these cases are currently under appeal in various high courts.
Justice Sardar Ejaz had stated that the commission could request an extension, if needed, and should examine whether false accusations or wrongful prosecutions were being carried out under blasphemy laws.
The petitioners claimed their relatives had been entrapped by a “blasphemy business gang” using honey-trap tactics, which coerced them into sharing or posting allegedly blasphemous content on social media.
Advocate Rao Abdul Rahim, named in the Special Branch’s report and the IHC’s earlier order as a central figure in the alleged blasphemy gang, filed an intra-court appeal challenging the formation of the commission.
His counsel, Kamran Murtaza, argued that the single-bench had overstepped its jurisdiction by taking a suo motu–like approach and issuing directives without providing the appellants a chance to be heard. He asserted that existing legal remedies through trial courts were bypassed and that the formation of a commission to investigate criminal matters contradicted existing legal frameworks and judicial precedents.
Murtaza further argued that the order suggested powers beyond even those of the Supreme Court, questioning whether such a case could remain pending once a final order had been passed. The bench agreed that this posed a legally untenable situation.
Following the initial hearing, the IHC bench reserved its ruling on the maintainability of the appeals. Later in the day, it issued its decision to suspend the earlier single-bench judgment and served notices to all original respondents.
In a related development, the parents and relatives of the accused individuals held a press conference at the National Press Club to clarify their position. They emphasized that neither their petition to the federal government nor the writ in the IHC demanded any amendment or repeal of the blasphemy laws.
“We are not opposing the law; we are only seeking a transparent investigation to protect innocent people from being falsely implicated,” one family member stated.
They also condemned what they called misleading propaganda on social media, which claims they are conspiring to abolish the blasphemy law. “All we ask for is justice, not legislative change,” they reiterated.
