ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has provided detailed reasons explaining why the formation of an inquiry commission is necessary to probe blasphemy cases, citing serious concerns over entrapment, official negligence and custodial deaths.
In a nine-page written judgment authored by Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan following 42 hearings in a blasphemy case, the court stressed the matter’s gravity and the need for a thorough inquiry.
“There are by now about 400 FIRs and about 700 accused in online blasphemy cases, with a fair number of the accused claiming entrapment that was never investigated. I am at an utter loss to understand which other matter would qualify as one of general interest or one of vital concern to the public if this case does not pass the statutory test,” the judgment notes.
The court justified the constitution of an inquiry commission by pointing to the federal government’s prolonged inaction, 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 blasphemy-related gang.
“The Federal Government’s inaction despite the January 2024 report by the Special Branch of the Punjab Police naming the members of the alleged gang and giving enough basis for justifying a deeper probe into the matter,” the order notes.
The judgment highlights that no investigation was ever carried out to identify or question the mysterious girl known as ‘Imaan,’ despite several unconnected accused from different parts of the country claiming to have been entrapped by her in nearly identical ways.
The court said it was essential to determine how such uniform claims could arise, and why this did not raise red flags for investigators.
“The sudden disappearance of that girl Imaan (real name Komal) from her matrimonial home and also from her parents’ home after her role was exposed during these proceedings, and she remaining untraceable despite efforts by NCCIA/FIA on the orders of this Court.”
The order continues: “The number in Imaan’s use being admittedly connected with Rao Abdul Rahim who, per the Special Branch’s report, was the lead person of the blasphemy gang.”
It also notes disturbing inconsistencies in how evidence was handled.
“Facebook IDs and passwords surrendered to FIA in complaints being used again in subsequent complaints without any explanation coming forth from the FIA or the complainants as to how the said IDs and passwords were used by the complainants in new FIRs with the IDs already surrendered along with the passwords.”
The court also viewed videos played during proceedings, including one showing the arrest of an accused in FIR No. 52/2024 outside Layyah University by private individuals in a white car.
“The registration number is admittedly that of Rao Abdul Rahim (though he denied in Court that the car was his) and the investigation record not recording the time of his arrest, but, rather ridiculously, recording that, per the secret informer’s report, the accused was standing outside the gates of Layyah University whereupon the IO left Islamabad and was able to arrest the accused still standing outside the gates of Layyah University despite the journey time between Islamabad and Layyah being about 5 hours.”
Other serious lapses were highlighted as well.
“The candid admission by National Cyber Crimes Investigation Agency/FIA’s investigation officers that, in many instances, they did not carry out the detailed forensic evidence of the complainant’s devices, which is quite inexplicable given the stance of entrapment taken by several accused.”
“The absence of any cogent explanation by FIA/NCCIA’s officials, who attended the hearings throughout, as to why no investigation was ever carried out to identify the original creators of the blasphemous content.”
The court also noted that the key legal concept of mens rea – criminal intent was never properly examined in the majority of FIRs: “The stance of entrapment, equating to the absence of mens rea, never being properly and fully investigated before the challans were submitted in many FIRs.”
It also raised concerns over procedural irregularities. “The videos played in Court showing some members of the alleged gang making private arrests, which were shown to have been made by FIA officers in the investigation records, and which arguably led to the accused’s phones coming in the hands of the private persons, that cannot rule out planting of evidence on those phones or deleting the entrapment conversations by or at the instance of or to the knowledge of the complainants.”
In one instance, a father of an accused appeared in a video claiming the FIA demanded a bribe and that a case was registered when he failed to pay: “A video played in Court with the poor father of one accused claiming demand of illegal gratification by FIA and the lodging of the FIR when he remained unable to pay.”
The court also documented a troubling pattern involving Rao Abdul Rahim: “The exoneration of Rao Abdul Rahim in FIR 73/2022 by the deceased Abdullah Shah’s father, after the latter was implicated in the same FIR by Mudassir Shah, Deputy Director, FIA on being transferred from Lahore, on the basis of the statement that he had carried out his own investigation and found Rao innocent, despite the police’s interim challan showing a clear and admitted connection with the telephone number connecting with Rao Abdul Rahim holding the last conversation with the deceased.”
Other troubling revelations include: “Rao Abdul Rahim’s clerk posing as a woman on some chat groups that led to registration of complaints.”
“The NCCIA’s expert’s admission that, in many FIRs, proper detailed forensic evidence of the complainant’s phone should also have been carried out but was never carried out.”
“The completion of the inquiry, investigation and registration of some FIRs on the same day in violation of the SOPs of the FIA.”
The court also questioned the legitimacy of an organisation: “The so-called ‘Legal Commission on Blasphemy,’ presenting itself as an NGO, led by Rao Abdul Rahim, when it is neither registered under any applicable law nor listed in any official database of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) or the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), rendering its legal status and activities questionable.”
Even more grave were custodial deaths.
“Four accused of blasphemy dying in prison, without judicial or administrative inquiry being conducted into those custodial deaths, with one video played before the Court showing visible bruises and signs of torture allegedly leading to his death while in custody.”
The order adds that “several other similar circumstances, the details of which are recorded in the interim orders in this case.”
The court concluded that “there is no doubt that this is indeed a matter of definite public interest.”
Accordingly, the court directed the federal government to constitute a commission of inquiry within 30 days, including the suggested members and Terms of Reference as laid out in the court’s earlier order dated January 31, 2025. The commission is to complete its proceedings within four months.
The order also stated that the government notification establishing the commission must be submitted to the court within 30 days. The court office has been instructed to place the file with the notification before the judge in chambers.
“Office is directed to transmit copies of this order to the Secretary, Cabinet Division, with the direction to move the requisite summary to the federal government forthwith.”
“Copies will also be transmitted to the offices of the learned Attorney General and the Advocate General, and to such other offices as may be relevant for the purpose of diligent implementation of this order.”
The hearing has been adjourned until December 15.
