Despite the disposal of its review petition, the federal government has once again approached the Supreme Court, seeking the removal of certain portions from its February 6, 2024 order in the Mubarak Ahmad Sani case.
Shortly after the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) moved the application, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa scheduled the case for a hearing by a three-member bench, which he will lead. The bench is set to consider the government's request on August 22.
On February 6, a three-member bench led by CJ Isa granted bail to an Ahmadi man, Mubarak Ahmad Sani, who had been accused of an offence in 2019 and subsequently convicted under the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording) (Amendment) Act, 2021.
The bench noted that the offence with which the defendant was charged had not been criminalized until 2021. As a result, Sani was granted bail, and his immediate release was ordered. Following this decision, a campaign was launched against CJ Isa, despite the Supreme Court issuing a clarification regarding the order.
The Punjab government quickly filed a review petition against the February 6 order, arguing that paragraph 9 of the order, which pertained to Article 20 of the Constitution, needed modification to clarify that the rights of citizens, as envisaged in the Constitution, are not absolute but are subject to law, public order, and morality.
On July 24, the Supreme Court accepted the Punjab government's review petition and declared that the right to profess religion and religious freedom, as guaranteed by the Constitution, is subject to laws, morality, and public order.
However, some religious and political parties remain unsatisfied and have initiated protests against the order. The federal government has now filed an application under the Supreme Court Rules 1980, seeking the omission of certain parts of the order.
Legal experts are questioning the maintainability of this application, as a second review petition is not permitted under Pakistani legal jurisprudence.
However, the application has been submitted under the Supreme Court Rules 1980, which state that nothing in these rules shall limit or otherwise affect the court's inherent powers to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the court's process.
In its application, the federal government argued that some observations and findings in the judgment appear to be accidental errors, contrary to the precedents set by the court in its judgment in the titled criminal review petition. "Therefore, these portions of the judgment in the titled criminal review petition merit correction by this court," the application stated.
HIGHLIGHT
The government argues that some observations and findings in the judgment appear to be accidental errors
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ