ON 15 July 2025, Justice Sardar Ijaz Ishaq of the Islamabad High Court ordered the formation of an Inquiry Commission to investigate allegations raised by the Special Branch Police regarding a purported “Blasphemy Business Gang” involved in pornographic blasphemy cases.
This order came in the backdrop of the Noor Fatima, etc. vs. Federation of Pakistan, etc. case, where six lawyers were reportedly denied the right to defend.
However, the Single Bench’s order was temporarily suspended on 24 July 2025, raising serious questions about the judicial basis and factual integrity of the original directive. One of the central justifications cited in the order for forming the Inquiry Commission was the alleged inaction of the Federal Government following a January 2024 report by the Special Branch of Punjab Police. In paragraph 7(ii), the judge remarked: “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.”
However, a detailed examination of the Federal Government’s actions paints a different picture. An unsigned application lacking both signatures and thumb impressions was submitted on 4 August 2024, requesting the formation of an Inquiry Commission based on the same Special Branch report. It is crucial to note that the contents of this report were previously termed “unverified, untrue and unauthentic” by the DIG of the Special Branch before the Hon’ble Lahore High Court. In response, the Additional Director of Rawalpindi initiated an inquiry into the alleged nexus between a so-called Blasphemy Business Gang, officials of the FIA and claims of entrapment and extortion. The inquiry was assigned to the Incharge of the Anti-Blasphemy Unit, Rawalpindi, who contacted the Special Branch on 4 June 2024. After receiving no reply, a reminder was sent on 2 July 2024 to the Additional Inspector General of the Special Branch, requesting the nomination of a focal person (not below the rank of Inspector) and further assistance.
The Special Branch responded on 5 December 2024 through letter No. 6276/(5) R & S, nominating a Surveillance Technical Officer instead of an Inspector, and clarified that no one could be permanently assigned to the inquiry. The FIA was advised to send queries directly to this focal person. When the FIA did reach out for supporting evidence, they received only general information and screenshots from social media profiles—without any official documentation or verifiable evidence to support the serious allegations. Moreover, the nominated focal person never physically joined the inquiry. As a result, the FIA closed the inquiry due to lack of evidence substantiating the Special Branch’s claims. This context reveals that the assertion of Federal Government inaction in paragraph 7(ii) of the Single Bench order is inconsistent with the record and ignores the documented efforts of federal authorities, particularly the FIA. The reliance on one-sided, unverified reports—especially those already discredited by senior police officials—raises concerns about judicial impartiality and due process.
While it is true that every judicial decision inherently favours one party, however, issuing an order that contains material inaccuracies and factual contradictions risks undermining public confidence in the judiciary. When judicial decisions appear to be influenced by selective narratives or unverified allegations, it lends weight to public concerns that such proceedings may be used to grant undue relief to more than 400 accused individuals, halting their trials and facilitating escape from justice. This episode not only affects individual cases but also tarnishes the reputation of Pakistan’s judicial system, which currently ranks 129th globally in rule of law indices.
There is a growing perception that controversial narratives are being used to manipulate blasphemy laws for external funding, awards or sympathy—undermining the seriousness of both judicial independence and religious sensitivity. To safeguard judicial integrity and restore public trust, it is imperative that courts exercise greater scrutiny when relying on investigative reports—particularly those already found unreliable. The judiciary must remain above influence, ensuring that justice is neither delayed nor distorted. Only through transparency, impartiality and strict adherence to facts can the repute of Pakistan’s legal system be preserved.
—The writer is a practicing lawyer, research scholar, and human rights activist working on structural reforms in Pakistan’s criminal justice system.
