Business Recorder
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) declared that the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) has no constitutional authority to determine or comment on the criminal culpability of individuals. The IHC bench also declared that the opinion of the CII in a blasphemy-related investigation was unlawful and without jurisdiction. A single bench of Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, before his transfer to the Lahore High Court, set aside the CII’s 2025 opinion regarding cleric-turned YouTuber Engineer Muhammad Ali Mirza, terming it “without lawful authority and of no legal effect.” The matter arose from FIR No. 563 of 2025 registered under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 at Police Station Jhelum City, in which Engineer Mirza was nominated over a statement made in a YouTube video. During the investigation, the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) sought guidance from the CII on whether the content amounted to blasphemy. The council subsequently issued an opinion declaring the statement blasphemous, which was later incorporated into the investigative record. The petition challenging the CII’s involvement was filed by Dr Muhammad Aslam Khaki, who argued that the council had exceeded its constitutional mandate by entering into a matter that falls within the domain of criminal adjudication. Justice Kayani wrote that such past practices cannot override the clear constitutional limitations imposed by Articles 229 and 230. “No doubt, the Council of Islamic Ideology comprises eminent scholars, and its interpretations of the Qur’an and Sunnah hold significant intellectual value. However, the issue at hand concerns the fundamental rights of an individual and must be adjudicated strictly within the bounds of constitutional jurisdiction,” maintained the judge. He added, “Therefore, any criminal liability is the exclusive domain of courts as held in PLD 1999 [SC] 504 (Liaquat Hussain Vs. Federation of Pakistan). The Constitution does not envisage the Council of Islamic Ideology as a forum for determining the criminality of individuals, but as an advisory body for examining the conformity of laws with the Injunctions of Islam. Justice Kayani stated Article 9 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law; however, the impugned opinion, in effect, tends to prejudice the rights of the accused and may curtail his right to life. Similarly, Article 14, which safeguards the dignity of man, has also been implicated, as the impugned opinion undermines the constitutional protection afforded to individuals. Consequently, the impugned opinion is declared to violate the constitutional framework. The judgment said that the federal government or the Council of Islamic Ideology may approach the Parliament for appropriate amendments in Articles 229 and 230 of the Constitution to expand the scope of the CII’s jurisdiction; until such an amendment is made, any exercise beyond the existing constitutional mandate shall remain without lawful authority. The Court held that the opinion rendered by the Council of Islamic Ideology in FIR No.563 of 2025 is without lawful authority and jurisdiction, and thus cannot be given legal effect. Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Go to News Site