Whether everyone has licence totake law into own hands, asks SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Tuesday questioned as to whether everyone has the licence to take law into hands and impose his own decision while committing a crime.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa resumed hearing in the appeal filed by Mumtaz Qadri, the self confessed killer of ex-governor Punjab Salman Taseer against the verdict of Islamabad High Court (IHC), upholding his death sentence.
During the course of hearing, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa observed that if everyone will impose his own decision than chaos will prevail in the society, adding as to whether everyone got a licence to take law into his hands while committing a crime.
He recalled that there were many incidents wherein a mob of people gathered on just hearsay and unconfirmed reports about a blasphemy matter and tend to stage protest. This is a big issue when people tend to gather for protest without any investigation and without proper information on blasphemy matter and create law and order situation.
Whether the accused Mumtaz Qadri had proper information that the deceased Salman Taseer had committed blasphemy by criticising blasphemy law,” Justice Khosa asked.
Justice (R) Nazir Akhtar, counsel for Mumtaz Qadri, submitted that it’s a religious duty and if the state failed to perform its religious duty than one has to do so and Mumtaz Qadri did the same on the teachings of Islam.
The court directed Nazir Akhtar to conclude his arguments today (Wednesday) and to focus as to how the teachings, principles and examples of Islam in the light of Quran and Sunnah regarding blasphemy can be applied in the present situation and who will apply this.
During the hearing, Nazir Akhtar while commencing his arguments submitted that it has been clearly mentioned in the law that anyone who insults Islam and the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) are liable to be killed. He cited various examples from the Hadiths that anyone found guilty of disobeying the Command of Allah and His Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) would be punished on the Day of Judgment as well as during lifetime. He while further quoting some Hadiths submitted that the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) on various occasions ordered killing of persons found guilty of blasphemy.
Justice Khosa observed that there is a law available on blasphemy and the state is authorised to take legal action on blasphemy act rather than allowing an individual to take law into hands and committing a crime.
“The court is empowered to take legal action but not an individual,” Justice Khosa said. He questioned the counsel as to whether after the press conference of the former governor, did anybody complained to the government that Salman Taseer had committed blasphemy.
Justice Dost Muhammad Khan, another member of the bench, asked the counsel as to whether any petition was filed in a court of law after the press conference of Salman Taseer. The counsel informed the court that one petition was filed in the High Court but it was not entertained, adding that an application was also filed in a police station however, it was too not entertained.
Justice Khosa observed that the accused was a serving policeman and a guard at the time of the governor’s murder.
Justice Dost Muhammad Khan observed that there were many sects in the Ulema of the country and the misuse of blasphemy law is also an issue.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that misuse is another issue but here a person had declared the blasphemy law as black law which no one can tolerate.
He further submitted that Mumtaz Qadri was a simple guard and he even did not dare to talk to the former governor but maybe Salman Taseer had uttered some words which could not be tolerated by the accused and he opened fire while the rest of other guards present on the occasion did not respond. He contended that the Islamabad High Court did not examine the material of Islamic history.
Justice Khosa observed that they have great respect to all the teachings of Quran and Sunnah and they have learnt a lot during the arguments of the learned counsel. However, he said that matter pertaining to the Islamic teachings and religious matters does not come either in the jurisdiction of High Court and Supreme Court under Article 203 (g)(g) of the Constitution and only the Federal Shariat Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such matters.
He asked the counsel to conclude his arguments today (Wednesday) focusing as to how the examples of the Hadiths can be applied in today’s society and adjourned the hearing.