Commission on blasphemy claims stayed over ‘interference’ fears

• IHC bench explains reasons for suspending earlier order directing govt to form probe body
• Mysterious woman accused of ‘trapping’ accused men surfaces in court

ISLAMABAD: A two-judge bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has said any commission formed to investigate the alleged misuse of the blasphemy law could interfere in cases pending before other courts.

The judges on Tuesday explained the reasons for suspending a single bench’s order in the high-profile case.

The now-suspended judgement was issued by Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan after 42 hearings in the case whose proceedings were streamed live, in a divergence from the norm.

It directed the federal government to establish an inquiry commission within 30 days to investigate the allegations of entrapment, custodial deaths, flawed investigations and violations of fundamental rights.

The order, issued on July 15, said nearly 400 FIRs and around 700 individuals were implicated for allegedly committing blasphemy online.

The court also flagged irregularities in FIA’s investigations, including the reuse of Facebook IDs across multiple FIRs, same-day arrests and FIR registrations, private detentions and the use of unverified digital evidence.

Last week, an IHC bench comprising Justices Khadim Hussain Soomro and Mohammad Azam Khan heard appeals challenging the single-bench’s ruling.

After a preliminary hearing, the bench suspended for a month the order to form the commission.

During Tuesday’s hearing, the two-judge bench noted the nearly 400 blasphemy cases, at the heart of this issue, were registered nationwide.

The trials in most of these cases had already concluded, resulting in either convictions or acquittals. In some cases, appeals have been filed against those decisions that are currently pending before various high courts.

The order stated that forming an inquiry commission in such a context could interfere with pending, potentially rendering the legal process “ineffective”.

Interim or final order

The two-judge bench also clarified that Justice Khan’s order was final as it had allowed the plea to establish the commission.

The question over the order’s status was raised during the last hearing when the petitioners’ lawyer claimed the case was initially decided but the written verdict stated it would remain pending.

The division bench further clarified that although intra-court appeals are typically not filed against interim orders, the single bench’s ruling was final in nature as it had allowed the plea to establish the commission.

‘Mysterious’ woman

Also on Tuesday, a woman named Komal Ismail also appeared before the division bench along with her lawyer.

She is accused of honey-trapping the victims using a false social media identity by the name of “Imaan”.

In a hearing earlier this month, Justice Khan directed the FIA to block her national identity card after she repeatedly failed to appear before the court.

During Tuesday’s proceedings, Ms Ismail’s counsel argued her client was not a party in the main case, yet her CNIC was blocked and her name placed on the Exit Control List.

Justice Soomro responded that Ms Ismail had only been asked to appear before the investigating officer and questioned the harm in complying with that direction.

The bench emphasised that while the case involving Ms Ismail remained under investigation, the court would not interfere in the matter.

Later, the court linked Ms Ismail’s applications with the already pending intra-court appeals and adjourned the hearing.

Published in media, July 30th, 2025