May 5, 2026
Staff Report
ISLAMABAD
In a significant judgement, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has ruled that the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) has no constitutional authority to determine or comment on the criminal culpability of individuals, declaring its opinion in a blasphemy-related investigation as unlawful and without jurisdiction.
In a detailed judgment issued by Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani before his transfer to the Lahore High Court, the court set aside the CII’s 2025 opinion regarding cleric-turned-YouTuber Engineer Muhammad Ali Mirza, terming it “without lawful authority and of no legal effect.”
The matter arose from FIR No. 563 of 2025 registered under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 at Police Station Jhelum City, in which Engineer Mirza was nominated over a statement made in a YouTube video.
During the investigation, the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) sought guidance from the CII on whether the content amounted to blasphemy. The council subsequently issued an opinion declaring the statement blasphemous, which was later incorporated into the investigative record.
The petition challenging the CII’s involvement was filed by Dr Muhammad Aslam Khaki, who argued that the council had exceeded its constitutional mandate by entering into a matter that falls within the domain of criminal adjudication.
Appearing in the case, the Additional Attorney General referred to Articles 229 and 230 of the Constitution, arguing that the CII is empowered to advise state institutions on matters relating to Islamic injunctions and legislative guidance.
However, the court drew a sharp distinction between the advisory role of the council and judicial functions, observing that the Constitution does not permit the CII to engage in fact-finding or assess criminal liability.
“The Council of Islamic Ideology is neither a fact-finding nor an adjudicatory forum, and its role cannot be extended to. pronounce whether a particular act of an accused constitutes an offence or not,” the judgment stated.
Justice Kayani noted that the constitutional design of the CII is limited to legislative consultation. Referring to Article 230, the court highlighted that the council may only advise Parliament, provincial assemblies, the President, or Governors on whether laws conform to Islamic injunctions or suggest reforms to align legislation with Islamic principles.
The judgment stressed that the NCCIA does not fall within the list of institutions authorised under Article 229 to seek advice from the CII, making the reference itself constitutionally questionable.
“A plain reading of Articles 229 and 230 makes it evident that only specified constitutional offices and legislatures may refer questions to the Council, and such references are confined to proposed or existing laws,” the court observed.
The court further held that extending such advisory opinions into criminal investigations amounts to acting beyond constitutional limits. It reiterated that any exercise of authority outside the framework of the Constitution is “ultra vires and without lawful sanction.”
Citing established jurisprudence, including the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Mustafa Impex case (PLD 2016 SC 808), the court emphasised that state institutions must operate strictly within their defined constitutional boundaries.
The judgment further clarified that criminal liability cannot be inferred or determined through advisory religious opinions, as this would blur the constitutional separation between advisory, investigative, and judicial functions.
The judgment also underscored that the role of determining criminal liability involves evidence appreciation, intent assessment, and judicial scrutiny — functions exclusively reserved for courts of law and cannot be exercised by an advisory body.
The court observed that investigative agencies, if needed, may seek independent scholarly input for internal assistance; however, such material must remain part of the investigation record and cannot be elevated to binding or determinative status.
Importantly, the court held that the CII’s opinion, when introduced into the investigative process, had the potential to prejudice the accused and undermine fair trial guarantees under Article 10-A of the Constitution.
While acknowledging the scholarly standing of the CII and the value of its religious interpretations, the court cautioned against extending its advisory role into adjudicatory territory. “The Constitution does not envisage the Council of Islamic Ideology as a forum for determining the criminality of individuals, but as an advisory body for examining the conformity of laws with the Injunctions of Islam.”
The court concluded that the impugned opinion had no legal standing and could not be relied upon in any criminal proceeding. It also reiterated that any expansion of the CII’s jurisdiction would require a constitutional amendment through Parliament.
“If the scope of the Council’s mandate is to be expanded, it must be done through the constitutional process. Until such time, any exercise beyond its defined authority remains without lawful effect,” the judgment stated