Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa has recently emerged as a central figure in one of the most controversial blasphemy cases in Pakistan’s judicial history. A decision from his court granting bail to an accused from the Ahmadiyya community sparked outrage, protests, and threats directed at the judiciary. The case touches on sensitive themes like religious freedom, constitutional rights, political pressure, and the safety of judges. It raises questions about how far the judiciary can uphold rule of law in the face of extremist backlash.
Background of the Blasphemy Case
The case involved Mubarak Ahmad Sani, an Ahmadiyya Muslim accused of distributing religious literature considered forbidden under amendments to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. He was charged under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code but had remained incarcerated for over a year. A Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa reviewed Sani’s detention, and determined that the alleged acts were not criminal at the time of the behavior, leading to his release on bail.
Legal Reasoning and Constitutional Rights
Justice Isa emphasized constitutional protections including freedom of religion under topic 20 and due process rights. He noted that Sani’s alleged conduct had occurred before the relevant law was enacted, and that mere distribution of religious materials, without defamatory content or intent, did not automatically constitute blasphemy. The judgment underscored the need for corroboration beyond flimsy witness testimony and cautioned against mob-driven accusations.
Public Backlash and Threats
Following the decision, Islamist political groups, including TehreekeLabbaik Pakistan (TLP), launched protests accusing Justice Isa of blasphemous conduct. Demonstrators stormed parts of Islamabad’s Red Zone, and extremist voices demanded the chief justice’s resignation. A TLP leader even placed a monetary bounty on his life, intensifying fears for judicial independence and personal safety.
State Response and Court Revisions
In response to mounting pressure, the Punjab government petitioned for a review of the ruling, prompting the Supreme Court to agree to expunge certain paragraphs referenced in the original decision that stated broader rights for religious minorities. While the Court reaffirmed the bail order, it declared that the deleted sections could no longer set precedent in future rulings.
CJ Isa’s Call for Diligent Police Conduct
The chief justice also issued directives to law enforcement emphasizing professionalism in blasphemy investigations. During hearings, Isa criticized police for registering cases impulsively and entering homes without warrants. He insisted that investigations be supervised at a senior level and carried out with care to protect constitutional and privacy rights.
Implications for Religious Freedom and Minority Rights
The case highlights the tension between extremist mob demands and constitutional guarantees. Isa’s legal stance affirmed that Ahmadi citizens, though declared non-Muslim by constitutional amendment, still retain the right to practice and propagate their faith within legal limits provided they do not misrepresent Islamic identity. Courts must weigh religious freedom under topic 20 and public order constraints carefully in blasphemy contexts.
Personal and Institutional Risk
Justice Isa’s experience shows the personal hazards judges face when upholding constitutional principles in blasphemy matters. Despite threats, the Supreme Court publicly rebuked the smear campaign against him, affirming that judicial reasoning based on law not popular sentiment must prevail. State authorities also registered cases against extremist leaders for incitement against Isa.
Lessons for the Rule of Law
Several key lessons emerge from the Qazi Faez Isa blasphemy case:
- Courts must uphold due process and avoid acting under mob pressure.
- Police and investigators should follow legal procedures, especially in sensitive cases.
- Constitutional protections for religious expression should be interpreted carefully, even for unpopular minorities.
- Judicial independence requires institutional support and state protection.
Current Status and Ongoing Developments
As of mid2025, the Supreme Court has upheld its bail granted to Sani, but removed controversial language in the written judgment under pressure from religious groups. The case continues to provoke debate about the limits of judicial review, media influence, and the capacity of Pakistan’s institutions to maintain constitutional balance amid rising radicalization.
The Qazi Faez Isa blasphemy case stands at the intersection of constitutional law, religious freedom, and political pressure. His ruling to grant bail in a highly divisive Ahmadiyya blasphemy case underscored legal principles over extremism, but also brought violent backlash and institutional threats. The case reveals how sensitive blasphemy matters are in Pakistan, and how the judiciary must navigate legal integrity, minority rights, and public safety. It offers a critical test of whether constitutional guarantees can survive when confronted by populist, extremist agendas.
Let me know if you’d like this refined further or have additional topics.