Tahir Naqash and others v The State and others 2022 SCMR 385

Parties Tahir Naqash/ Petitioners / Appellant

v
The State/ Respondents/ Appellee

Cause of Action
The petitioner as Ahmedis filed a review
petition against the order of the trial court
whereby, he was sentenced under section 295-
B and 295-C, P.P.C for styling their place of
worship as a mosque.

Defense or Response

⦁ The place of worship of the petitioners

is a public place. Therefore, styling the place
of worship as a mosque is an offense under
295-B and 295-C, P.P.C.

⦁ The defense relied on the following

cases to form their reasoning; Zaheeruddin v
State, Majibur Rehman v. Federal
Government, Jahangir Joya v. State, Khurshid
Ahmad v. Government of Punjab.

⦁ The reading of the Kalma and the

Holy Qur'an by Ahmadis is a defilement and
desecration of the sanctity of the Kalma, the
Holy Qur'an, and the Holy Prophet. This is an
offense under section 295-B and 295-C,
P.P.C.
Prior Proceedings

⦁ The Court of Magistrate found the

petitioner liable under sections 298-B and
298-C, P.P.C.

⦁ The complainant filed an application

through Section 227, Cr.P.C to add offense
under 295-B and 295-C, P.P.C.

⦁ The trial court the petitioners to liable

under sections 295-
B and 295-C, P.P.C. It allowed the
application.

⦁ The petitioners filed a revision petition

against the order of
the trial courts. This was dismissed by the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge.

⦁ The petitioners filed a petition before

the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
This was also dismissed.

Present Proceedings The petitioner filed a review petition in the

Supreme Court.

Key Facts
⦁ The petitioner and the other accused,
being an Ahmedi, had styled their place of
worship as a mosque. They symbolized sha
'air-e-Islam and had copies of the Holy Qur'an
inside their place of worship.

⦁ The complaint filed an FIR section

sections 298-B and 298-C, P.P.C. The Court
of Magistrate found the petitioner liable under
sections 298-B and 298-C, P.P.C.
⦁ According to the complainant the
place of worship was a public place therefore
styling it as a mosque attracted offense under
sections 298-B and 298-C, P.P.C.

⦁ It was also submitted that the very act

of reading of the Kalma and the Holy Qur'an
by Ahmadis is an offense under 295-B and
295-C, P.P.C.

⦁ The complainant filed an application

through Section 227, Cr.P.C to add offense
under 295-B and 295-C, P.P.C. The trial court
the petitioners to liable under sections 295-B
and 295-C, P.P.C. It allowed the application.

⦁ The petitioners filed a revision petition

against the order of
the trial courts. This was dismissed by the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge.

⦁ According to the petitioner the place

of worship was a private not a public place
and did not attract offense under Section 298-
B and 298-C.

⦁ Furthermore there was no material

available that the petitioner had defiled the
Holy Quran or the Holy Prophet. Therefore,
they should not be held liable under section
295-B and section 295-C.

⦁ The petitoner filed a revision petition

in the Supreme Court.
Issue Did the lower courts err in placing the styling
of a place of worship as mosque by the
petitioner as an Ahmedi as an offense under
sections 295-B and 295-C, P.P.C?

Holding Yes

Ratio

⦁ A restriction was placed only on the

public activities of Ahmedis which may
directly incite the Muslim community (n
Zaheeruddin v. State) (Majibur Rehman v.
Federal Government). The act of reciting
Kalima is not a crime with. Religious
activities carried out in private by Ahmedis do
not constitute as crimes as they lack direct
intent to defile the Muslim community.

⦁ The constitution protects the right of

 Ahmedis express religion under Article 20
and 14.

⦁ In order to constitute an offense under

section 295-C, P.P.C., there must be "words
spoken or written or by visible representation
or any imputation, innuendo or insinuation,
direct or indirect, which defiles the sacred
name of the Holy Prophet Muhammed".

⦁ Only the readings of Kalima or Holy

Quran do not constitute as an offense as they
lack the fundamental characters of mens rea
and actus reus.

Disposition
⦁ The lower courts had erred in
constituting offenses under sections 295-B
and 295-C, P.P.C.
⦁ They had also failed to analyze the
judgement of Zaheeruddin case

⦁ The High Court made a legal error in

keeping the orders.
⦁ The petition was converted into
appeal. The petition of the petitioners under
section 561-A, Cr.P.C. was accepted.
⦁ The order of the High court was
reversed. The orders of trial and revisional
courts were set aside.
⦁ The trial of the petitioners was
continued under the offense framed under
sections 298-B and 298-C, P.P.C.
Comments
⦁ The Supreme court protected the right
of Ahmedis to profess their religion as laid
down by the constitution under Article 20 and
14. The reasoning of the court not only
protects the faith of Muslims but also
Ahmedis.

⦁ This is done by adopting a more

critical approach of the Zaheeruddin
judgement whereby a bar is placed on the
public display of activities by Ahmedis. The
court also does not put a blanket ban on all
activities but makes a distinction between
activities which would have a direct intent to
defile the Muslim community.

⦁ There is an influx of cases indicted

because of blasphemy because an allegation is
sufficient for penal consequences. The
Supreme court avoids this by adopting a more
stringent approach. The fact order of the High
court and the owner courts was reversed and
set aside by the Supreme court reflects the
gap in our judicial system.