Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: Mumtaz Qadri’s counsel failed to prove through a legally admissible evidence that the victim Salmaan Taseer, the slain governor of Punjab province, had committed blasphemy within the meanings of the Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), according to the detailed verdict issued by the Supreme Court on Monday in a review petition filed by the assassin against his death sentence.

On December 14, a three-member bench of the top court headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa had turned down the review petition against the death sentence of Mumtaz Qadri for killing the then governor Salmaan Taseer.

In a six-page written order, the top court observed that no obvious error in the record was pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner (Mumtaz Qadri).

The order stated that in view of the provisions of articles 203G and 230 of the constitution, the interpretation matter of the commands of Islam as established in Holy Quran and Sunnah falls within the exclusive domain, powers and jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court, Shariat Appellate Bench and the Council of Islamic Ideology with reference to an existing and proposed law.

It further stated that SC’s jurisdiction in such matters is limited to application of principles where those are settled, adding that it is obvious that the same also applied to the Islamabad High Court and the IHC while issuing judgment in the same matter had discussed the Islamic provisions.

The top court observed that the petitioner had failed to identify the so-called very important religious and legal questions involved in the review petition, therefore, the prayer made for constitution of larger bench could not be allowed.

The judgment, on the appeal of Qadri’s counsel to constitute larger bench for review petition, said that a party to a case cannot claim that its case may be heard by any number of judges of a court desired by the party and also that a party to case has no say in the matter of constitution of the benches.

It is also stated in the verdict that the three-member bench of the IHC had heard the case and the SC saw no reason why the review petition filed against the judgment of the court may not be heard and decided by a bench of the equal number. “As far as the contentions of the counsel for petitioner (Mumtaz Qadri) regarding the merits of the case and in respect of the petitioner’s sentences are concerned, we have found that through such contentions an attempt has been made to reargue the case on those issues which fall outside the scope of the review jurisdiction of this court. All such contentions have already been attended in the judgment under review in some detail and considered findings have been recorded by this court,” stated the order.