ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday maintained its earlier stay order on the Council of Islamic Ideology’s (CII) opinion that had termed Engineer Muhammad Ali Mirza guilty of blasphemy.
During the hearing, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani clarified that the court was not suspending the powers of the CII but was only examining the scope of those powers. He noted that the stay order on the council’s opinion would remain in place until further proceedings.
Justice Kayani summoned Attorney General Mansoor Awan for assistance, stressing the importance of the matter. He directed that the attorney general appear in person to present the state’s stance, remarking that the court must understand the state’s interpretation regarding the issue.
While hearing the case challenging the CII’s opinion, Justice Kayani questioned the council’s procedures. He observed that although the council’s rules state its opinions should be sent to Parliament, this particular opinion had been forwarded to a police station. “If the matter was meant for Parliament, how was it sent to an SHO?” he asked.
Counsel for the CII argued that all their recommendations are always conveyed to Parliament, stating that any matter — regardless of its nature — is presented there.
At one point, Justice Kayani reprimanded the CII representative for pulling out a mobile phone at the rostrum, instructing him to turn it off and place it aside.
The complainant in the FIR against Muhammad Ali Mirza also appeared in court, expressing his desire to assist. Justice Kayani asked him to take a seat, stating that the present discussion was solely about the powers of the CII, not the merits of the criminal case.
Justice Kayani further questioned whether the council would stand by its opinion as a form of testimony in a criminal matter, noting that in such cases even expert opinions—like those of doctors—are considered as evidence.
A CII representative informed the court that the post of chairman was currently vacant. Justice Kayani asked whether the court should then pass an order for the appointment of a chairman, remarking that the council should itself pursue the matter.
The petitioner’s lawyer criticised the council, saying it often sought relevance by issuing such opinions.
The court adjourned the hearing until after the winter recess.