Dr. MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAKI Versus COUNCIL OF ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY through Chairman

MOHSIN AKHTAR KAYANI, J.--- Through this writ petition, the petitioner, Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khaki, Advocate, in his personal capacity, has assailed the observation/recommendation rendered by the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) in relation to an accused in criminal case F.I.R. No. 563 of 2025 dated 26.08.2025, registered under Section 295-C, P.P.C. read with Section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 at Police Station Jhelum City, District Jhelum, wherein one Engr. Mirza Muhammad Ali son of Muhammad Arshad, resident of District Jhelum, has been nominated as an accused on the basis of his statement.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA), being the investigating agency, sought the opinion of the Council of Islamic Ideology on the matter, as it was uncertain whether the alleged statement constituted an offence of blasphemy or otherwise. Pursuant to the NCCIA's letter dated 12.09.2025 addressed to the Chairman, Council of Islamic Ideology, the CII rendered its opinion accordingly. The investigation agency had sought a scholarly opinion regarding a statement made in a YouTube video, which formed the basis of the criminal case. Consequently, the Council of Islamic Ideology rendered its opinion on the principal question, and thereafter the NCCIA proceeded to charge the accused under Section 295-C, P.P.C. read with the Section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that, in terms of Articles 229 and 230 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the Council of Islamic Ideology has no jurisdiction to render such an opinion. He further submits that the constitutional mandate of the Council of Islamic Ideology is confined to a specific framework and operates within defined parameters.

4.Notice was also issued to learned Attorney General for Pakistan under Order XXVII-A, C.P.C. for assistance. The learned Additional Attorney General appeared and, while referring Articles 229 and 230 of the Constitution, submitted that the Council of Islamic Ideology is constitutionally mandated to make recommendations to the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies regarding ways and means of enabling and encouraging Muslims of Pakistan to order their lives, individually and collectively, in accordance with the principles and concepts of Islam as enunciated in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. He further argued that the CII may advise the Parliament, Provincial Assemblies, the President, or the Governor on any question referred to it concerning a proposed law, and may also recommend measures for bringing existing laws into conformity with the injunctions of Islam. It was emphasized that such recommendations fall within the jurisdictional framework of the Council of Islamic Ideology and are to be considered by the competent legislative forums.

5.Arguments heard and record perused.

6.The controversy in the instant matter revolves around the opinion rendered by the Council of Islamic Ideology on the request of the NCCIA in relation to FIR No. 563 of 2025. The NCCIA, while investigating the alleged YouTube statement of the accused, sought a scholarly opinion from the CII, which subsequently declared the statement to be blasphemous. Although the petitioner has no direct nexus with the criminal case, he has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in public interest, contending that the CII has acted beyond its jurisdiction as defined under Articles 229 and 230 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

7.In order to appreciate the controversy in its true perspective, it is advantageous to reproduce Articles 229 and 230 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which read as under:

8.A plain reading of the above referred Articles reveals that the persons and entities entitled to seek advice from the CII are:

However, in this case NCCIA does not find mention anywhere in the constitutional scheme in terms of Articles 229 and 230 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to refer any matter to CII, even though the status of CII is advisory in nature with limited scope. Such advisory jurisdiction is, therefore, legislative and policy-oriented in nature, and does not extend to the examination of facts of an individual case or the determination of criminal liability. It is settled law that all the State functionaries must act strictly within their constitutional mandate, any assumption of jurisdiction not expressly conferred is ultra vires as held in PLD 2016 [SC] 808 (Messrs Msutafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan) , therefore, when the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner and not otherwise.

9.From the above constitutional scheme, it is evident that no authority, other than, those specified, can seek advice from the CII. Moreover, such advice must relate to a proposed or existing law, and not to the determination of criminal liability of an individual. In addition to this, the subject matter being a criminal case does not fall within the constitutional domain of the CII. The Council of Islamic Ideology is neither a fact-finding nor an adjudicatory forum, and its role cannot be extended to pronounce whether a particular act of an accused constitutes an offence or not. The application of penal provisions, including Section 295-C, P.P.C., necessarily involves appreciation of evidence, assessment of intent, and determination of facts, which are functions exclusively vested in the investigating agency and the competent Court of law, and not in an advisory body constituted under the Constitution. The NCCIA, if so required, could have sought independent scholarly opinions and made them part of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. for consideration by the trial Court. However, the opinion of the CII, rendered without jurisdiction, cannot be sustained.

10.Furthermore, when examined in the light of Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it is apparent that the principles of due process and fair trial have been compromised. It is settled law that opinion given by CII is prejudicing the accused person and violates the right to fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as held in PLD 2015 [SC] 401 (District Bar Association Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan) .

11.The learned counsel for the CII and its Director (Legal), while appearing on the previous dates of hearing have placed several instances where opinions were rendered by the CII upon requests from various public and private entities. However, such past practices cannot override the clear constitutional limitations imposed by Articles 229 and 230.

12.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. Therefore, any criminal liability is the exclusive domain of courts as held in PLD 1999 [SC] 504 (Liaquat Hussain v. 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.

13.I have given anxious thought to the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Chapter I of the Constitution. 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 be in violation of the constitutional framework. It is, however, observed that, if deemed necessary, 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 amendment is made, any exercise beyond the existing constitutional mandate shall remain without lawful authority.

14.Accordingly, this Court holds that the opinion rendered by the Council of Islamic Ideology in F.I.R. No. 563 of 2025 is without lawful authority and jurisdiction, and thus cannot be given legal effect, therefore, instant writ petition is, therefore, ALLOWED .

MH/44/Isl. Petition allowed.