ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) issued order in the review petition of Mumutaz Qadri, the self-confessed killer of former Punjab Governor Salman Taseer.
A six-page order authored by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed that Mumtaz Qadri’s counsel failed to prove through any legally admissible evidence that the victim namely Salman Taseer had committed blasphemy within the meanings of section 295-C PPC.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa further observed that no error patent on the face of the record had been pointed out by the counsel for petitioner (Qadri) such findings of this court.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa on December 14 while dismissing the review petition of former elite force guard, Mumtaz Qadri, ruled that counsel for the petitioner failed to prove that the victim and former Punjab governor Salman Taseer had committed blasphemy.
The court in its order ruled that in view of the provisions of Articles 203G and 230 of the Constitution, the matter of interpretation of the injunctions of Islam as laid down in Holy Quran and Sunnah falls within the exclusive domain, power and jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court, Shariat Appellate Bench, and the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) with reference to an existing and proposed law and essentially.
It says that this court (SC)’s jurisdiction in such matters is limited to application of principles where they are settled, adding that it is but obvious that the same also applied to the Islamabad High Court.
The high court while issuing judgment in same matter had discussed Islamic provisions, says the order but ruled in the judgment it had refrained from matter of interpretation of the injunctions of Islam qua blasphemy and its punishment; therefore, the same was also expected of the IHC.
In this view of the matter, the order added that the observation made by IHC in the para No 28, 29 and 30 of judgment passed in this case could be treated as Obiter dicta.
Obiter Dicta mean a judge’s expression of opinion uttered in court or in a written judgment, but not essential to the decision and therefore not legally binding as a precedent.
The order while referring to the request of Qadri’s counsel about the constitution of full court or larger bench to hear his review petitions, ruled that a party to a case could not claim or demand that its case might be heard by any number of judges of a court desired by the party and also that a party to case had no say in the matter of constitution of benches of the court.
The court further ruled in the order that the three-member bench of the IHC had heard that case and they (SC) saw no reason that the review petition filed against the judgment of this court might not be heard and decided by a bench of equal number.
The court further 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 presumptively be appreciated or allowed.
“As far as the contentions of the counsel for petitioner (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 attempt falls outside the scope of the review jurisdiction of this court”, the order observed adding that all such contentions have already been attended to in the judgment under review in some detail and considered findings have been recorded by this court”.
It is pertinent to mention here that the court on October 7 upheld the death sentence of Mumtaz Qadri and allowed the federation’s appeal seeking restoration of terrorism charges against the accused.
The court in a short order had dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Mumtaz Qadri against the decision of Islamabad High Court upholding the verdict of trial court awarding death sentence under Section 302 of Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).
