Islamabad:
Islamabad High Court (IHC) has provided detailed reasons for explaining why the formation of a commission of inquiry is necessary to investigate blasphemy cases with reference to serious concerns about capture, official negligence and parenting deaths.
In a nine-page written judgment written by Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan after 42 hearings in a blasphemy case, the court emphasized the gravity of the case and the need for a thorough investigation.
“There are now about 400 FIRS and about 700 charged in online blasphemy cases, with a certain number of defendants claiming capture that was never investigated. I am at a complete loss to understand what other issues would qualify as one of general interest or one of the vital concerns if this case does not pass the statutory test.”
The court justified the Constitution of a Commission of Investigation by pointing to the federal government’s long-term passivity despite the National Commission for Human Rights’ (NCHR) October 2024 report recommending the formation of a commission or a jit to investigate the alleged existence of a blasphemir-related gang.
“The passivity of the federal government despite the January 2024 report from the special branch of the Punjab police, naming the members of the alleged gang and providing enough basis to justify a deeper probe in the case,” the order notes.
The verdict emphasizes that no investigation was ever done to identify or question the mysterious girl known as ‘Imaan’, despite several unified accused from different parts of the country who claimed to have been caught by her in almost identical ways.
The court said it was important to decide how such uniform claims could occur and why this did not raise red flags for investigators.
“The sudden disappearance of the girl IMAAN (real name Komal) from her marriage home and also from her parents’ home after her role was postponed during this procedure, and she remained unspecified despite efforts from NCCIA/FIA on the orders of this court.”
The order continues: “The number in IMAAN’s use is admittedly associated with Rao Abdul Rahim, who, by Special Branch’s report, was the protagonist of the blasphemy band.”
It also notes disturbing discrepancies in how evidence was handled.
“Facebook ides and passwords surrendered to the FIA in complaints that were again used in subsequent complaints, without any explanation from the FIA or the complaints about how the mentioned IDs and passwords were used by the complaints in new fours with the IDs already surrendered with the passwords.”
The court also watched videos played during the procedure, including one showing the arrest of an accused in FIR No. 52/2024 outside Layyah University of private individuals in a white car.
“The registration number is admittedly that Rao Abdul Rahim (although he refused to court that the car was his), and the Investigation Register, which did not record the time of his arrest, but rather ridiculously recorded it, per the secret informator, the defendant stood outside Gates from Layyah university and Layyah is about 5 hours.”
Other serious lapses were also highlighted.
“The sincere recording of the National Cyber Crimes Investigation Agency/FIA’s Investigators that in many cases they did not perform the detailed forensic proof of the complainant’s units, which is quite inexplicable in view of the attitude of capture taken by several accused.”
“The absence of any cogent explanation from the FIA/NCCIA officials who participated in the consultations everywhere, why no study was never conducted to identify the original creators of the blasphemous content.”
The court also noted that the most important legal concept of Lord -Rea – criminal intention – was never properly investigated in most of the eight: “Stance of Entrapment, similar to the absence of Lord Rea, was never examined properly and fully before the challenges were submitted in many firs.”
It also raised concern about procedural irregularities. “The videos played in court show some members of the alleged gangs who made private arrests, which were shown to have been made by the FIA officers in the Investigation Register, and which undoubtedly led the accused phones to come into the hands of the private individuals who cannot rule out the planting of evidence of these phones or delete the trapping conversations with the complaints. “
In one case, a father appeared to an accused in a video claiming that the FIA demanded bribery and that a case was registered when he did not pay, “A video played in court with the poor father of someone accused, where he claimed demand for the illegal satisfaction of the FIA and the stay of FIR when he remained unable to pay.”
The Court also documented a troubled pattern involving Rao Abdul Rahim: “The restoration of Rao Abdul Rahim in FIR 73/2022 by the deceased Abdullah Shah’s father, after the latter was implicated in the same four by Mudassir Shah, Deputy Director, FIA to be transferred from the Lahe Challan that shows a clear and busy connection with the phone number that connects with Rao Abdul Rahim who has the last conversation with the deceased.
Other troubled revelations include: “Rao Abdul Rahim’s clerk, who poses as a woman on some chat groups that led to the record of complaints.”
“NCCIA’s expert’s admission that in many fires, properly detailed forensic evidence of the complainant’s phone should also have been performed but never performed.”
“The end of the investigation, the investigation and registration of some eighties on the same day in violation of the FIA’s SOPs.”
The Court also questioned the legitimacy of an organization: “The so -called ‘Legal Commission for Blasphemy’, which presented itself as an NGO, led by Rao Abdul Rahim, when it is neither registered under any applicable law nor erected in any official database for securities and exchange commissions for Pakistan (SECP) (FBR) who reproduces his legal status and activities. “
Even more serious was custody.
“Four accused of blasphemy, who died in prison, without legal or administrative investigation being conducted on these custody, with a video game in court showing visible bruises and signs of torture that allegedly leads to his death while in custody.”
The order adds that “Several other similar circumstances whose details are recorded in the preliminary orders in this case.”
The court concluded that “there is no doubt that this is actually a question of the particular public interest.”
Accordingly, the Court ordered the Federal Government to constitute a commission of inquiry within 30 days, including the proposed members and reference conditions as stipulated in the court’s previous order of 31 January 2025. The Commission shall complete its procedure within four months.
The order also stated that the government notification establishing the Commission must be submitted to the court within 30 days. The Retail Office has been instructed to place the file with the message for the judge in chambers.
“The office is referred to transfer copies of this order to the secretary, the cabinet department, with the direction of moving the necessary summary to the federal government immediately.”
“Copies are also transferred to offices for the learned law lawyer and the Attorney General and to such other offices that may be relevant for the purpose of diligent implementing this order.”
The hearing has been postponed until December 15.
