Pakistan needs to draw distinction between blasphemy and blasphemy laws

One of the two main arguments for introducing Section 295 C and later on retaining it are said to prevent vigilante justice so that people did not take law into their own hands as in the case of Ilm Din; the other being the need to punish anyone showing disrespect to the Holy Prophet as said to be necessitated by the Islamic injunctions.

Ahmadiyya Times | News Watch | Asia Desk
Source/Credit:  EnerPub | Insights:  Analysis
By Xavier P William | January 13, 2011

It is common to say that a law is introduced to provide remedy for a mischief. What is the mischief that section 295 C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) provides remedy for?

The issue of Tauheen-i-Risalat (insult of the Holy Prophet) first raised head in the 1920s when a publication in Lahore by a Hindu publisher Raj Pal agitated the minds of some segments of Muslim population. Raj Pal was prosecuted under Section 153A which provided to punishment for acts (words, either spoken or written or by visible representations, or otherwise) that promoted feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes.


He was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court at Lahore. The conviction was however set aside by the high court with the opinion that though Raj Pal’s act may have outraged religious feelings of Muslims it did not fall within the mischief of Section 153, and that another legal provision was needed to be incorporated to remedy the mischief (Raj Pal versus The Emperor: AIR 1927 Lahore 250).

Raj Pal was later murdered in 1929 by Ilm Din.

In 1927, after the Lahore High Court judgment, the British Government introduced section 295-A (to the then Indian Penal Code, 1860) which provided for punishment for ‘deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs’. It was thought to take care of acts, among other things, of insult to the person of the Holy Prophet that should be deemed to be covered under the umbrella of acts intended to outrage religious feelings. Between 1927 and 1986 (the year when section 295-C was introduced), only a handful of cases (around 10) of result of the Holy Prophet were reported.

Several provisions were added to the religious insult laws in PPC’s Chapter XV titled "Offences relating to religion" during 1980s during the rule of the military dictator, General Zia (1977-1988). Those provisions included the Anti-Islamic Activities of the Qadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance, 1984, which introduced sections 298-B & C to the PPC specifically targeting the Ahmedis. Another section 298-B was also introduced by Gen. Zia through an Ordinance. Earlier in 1980, section 298-A was also introduced by Gen. Zia through an Ordinance. 298-B provides for punishment for use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of holy personages, and was apparently intended to target Shias.

Yet another section 295-B was added to PPC in 1982 which provided punishment for defiling of the Holy Quran.

Section 295-C, which was introduced through Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act III of 1986) seems to have proved to be the harshest. Originally, the draft bill moved by Jamat-i-Islami’s Apa Nisar Fatima, provided for death sentence alone for acts constituting insult to the Holy Prophet . It was passed by the then parliament in an amended form by providing alternative punishment of life imprisonment. Later, in 1990 the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) declared the alternative punishment of life imprisonment against the injunctions of Islam. In 1991, Nawaz Sharif government withdrew appeal against the FSC decision. It was thereafter that registration of cases under section 295-C saw a sharp rise.

One of the two main arguments for introducing Section 295 C and later on retaining it are said to prevent vigilante justice so that people did not take law into their own hands as in the case of Ilm Din; the other being the need to punish anyone showing disrespect to the Holy Prophet as said to be necessitated by the Islamic injunctions.

When section 295-A was introduced in 1927, the British Government acted wisely by making a corresponding change in section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which prohibits courts from taking cognisance of certain offences unless complaint is made by the government. It empowered the government alone to become complainant and prosecute cases registered under section 295-A.

The most famous case for alleged insult of the Holy Prophet before the introduction of section 295-C was registered under section 295-A against a Lahore lawyer. The case was dismissed by the Sessions Court as it was withdrawn by the Government because there "was no case of Tauheen-i-Risalat by the lawyer".

There was no recorded case of anyone having been killed extra-judicially for insult of the Holy Prophet after Raj Pal till 1986. Indeed, there was no empirical basis which sustained the argument of justifying 295-C for the prevention of vigilante justice. On the other hand, villages like Gojra and Shanti Nagar, have been burnt with scores dead. Twenty individuals are reported to have been murdered since the introduction of section 295-C. Governor Taseer may have been the twenty first. But he only questioned the utility of section 295-C.


Xavier P William is Spero correspondent for Asia.



Read original post here: Pakistan needs to draw distinction between blasphemy and blasphemy laws