Skip to content 
ISLAMABAD – The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) has called for a review of the Supreme Court’s July 24 ruling in the Mubarak Ahmad Sani case, citing concerns over the reasoning provided in the verdict.
Read also: Pakistan’s Wild Parakeets Face Extinction Threat Due to Illegal Trade and Habitat Loss
Following a meeting on Thursday, chaired by CII Chairman Dr. Muhammad Raghib Hussain Naeemi, the council issued a statement expressing its reservations. “The nation is deeply troubled by this ruling. This matter transcends legal technicalities; it touches on faith and devotion to the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him),” the statement read.
The CII plans to submit a detailed report to the Supreme Court, highlighting aspects of the decision that religious scholars and the council deem problematic in relation to Islamic principles.
Council members expressed optimism that the Supreme Court would reconsider its decision. They also called on the government, particularly Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, to take an active role in addressing the issue.
The case in question involves Mubarak Sani, who was accused in 2019 under the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording) (Amendment) Act. On February 6, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa overturned Sani’s conviction, noting that the alleged offense was not criminalized until 2021.
This decision sparked what government officials and legal professionals described as a “malicious campaign” against the Chief Justice, prompting the Supreme Court to issue a clarification.
The Punjab government subsequently challenged the ruling, arguing that paragraph 9 of the order, concerning Article 20 of the Constitution, required modification. They contended that citizens’ rights under this provision are not absolute but subject to law, public order, and morality.
On July 24, the Supreme Court accepted these pleas, reportedly affirming that the constitutional right to religious freedom is indeed subject to legal, moral, and public order considerations.
The CII’s call for review adds a new dimension to the ongoing legal and religious discourse surrounding this case.
