Islamabad: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday maintained its earlier stay order on the Council of Islamic Ideology’s (CII) opinion that had declared Engineer Muhammad Ali Mirza guilty of blasphemy. Presiding over the hearing, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani clarified that the court was not stripping the council of its authority but was examining the legal scope of its powers. The stay order will remain in effect until further proceedings.
Justice Kayani summoned Attorney General Mansoor Awan to personally assist the court, stating that the matter required clear interpretation from the state. He emphasised that the court must understand how the government views the council’s mandate and its actions in this specific case.
During arguments, the judge questioned the CII’s internal processes. He observed that while the council’s rules clearly state that its recommendations should be forwarded to Parliament, this controversial opinion had instead been sent to a police station. “If the matter was meant for Parliament, how was it sent to an SHO?” he asked.
The CII’s counsel responded that all recommendations—regardless of nature—are communicated to Parliament. However, the judge expressed concern about the deviation from established procedure in this instance.
At one point, Justice Kayani reprimanded a CII representative for taking out a mobile phone during arguments, instructing him to turn it off and place it aside. The complainant in the FIR against Ali Mirza was also present and offered to assist the court, but the judge asked him to sit down, stressing that the issue under discussion was limited to the CII’s powers, not the merits of the criminal case.
Justice Kayani also questioned whether the council intended to stand by its opinion as a form of testimony in a criminal matter, noting that even expert opinions carry evidentiary weight in such cases.
A CII representative informed the court that the chairman’s post was vacant. Justice Kayani then questioned whether the court should issue an order for the appointment of a chairman, remarking that the council should proactively address the vacancy.
The petitioner’s lawyer criticised the CII for overstepping its mandate and seeking relevance by issuing such declarations.
The court adjourned the matter until after the winter recess, with the stay order remaining in force.
