Blasphemy laws in Pakistan have a long history. Their origin can be traced back to the colonial era when they were introduced to avoid clashes among followers of different religions in the subcontinent.

These laws were amended and severer punishments were introduced for those guilty of committing blasphemy during Gen Ziaul Haq’s time. The severest of these punishments is hanging, followed by death for those who desecrate Quran, pass derogatory remarks against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), ridicule teachings of Islam and so on.

A large number of cases have been registered under these laws and several accused have been convicted. Besides, there is a large number of under-trial prisoners languishing in jails, waiting for their trials to proceed. Those convicted have to wait for years to get their appeals heard.

There is a strong perception that these laws are misused many times to settle scores with opponents and achieve ulterior motives.

"The entire legal procedure against any accused under blasphemy laws is discriminatory," says Peter Jacob, former executive director of National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP). "A subhuman treatment is part of the proceedings -- from registration of allegations with police to disposal of petitions and appeals at higher and superior judiciary."

Talking to TNS, Jacob holds the 2004 amendment, which requires blasphemy cases to be investigated by a high ranking police officer, has failed. "First, it is a sham clause because the high ranking officers don’t want to get involved. Second, even if one such officer agrees to get involved, he will be prone to social pressures. Therefore, higher the rank of the investigation officer, higher is the vulnerability of the victim."

For him, a more workable arrangement would perhaps be a quasi-judicial inquiry or an inquiry by an interfaith peace committee, with expertise in investigation and conflict resolution -- "These committees may be formed at district levels to analyse blasphemy charges before they are taken up by the police".

Kashif Nawab, team leader at Social Action Transformation of Humanity (SATH-Pakistan), an NGO working for women empowerment, minorities, justice and peace believes that the registration of a case under Section 295-C by the police is akin to issuing a death warrant -- for mere nomination in a blasphemy case is taken as conviction by people who look for a chance to kill the accused. "Blasphemy cases should be registered only on recommendation of superior courts or high-level government bodies which will give the police a reason to excuse registration of these cases without preliminary investigations," he suggests.

Cecil Chaudhry Jr who heads NCJP calls for announcement of the same punishment for a person who levels false allegations against an accused.

Jacob’s organisation regrets the recommendations of the Gojra judicial inquiry report by Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman of Lahore High Court (LHC) were never put to practice -- "We strongly support these recommendations and agree with the prescriptive part of the inquiry report."

These recommendations include provision of preliminary investigation by District Religious Dispute Resolution Board which may comprise DCO (chairman), DPO (member), district attorney (member) and others, identification of districts on the basis of their sensitivity towards religious or sectarian issues and better coordination among intelligence authorities and police so that the latter can spring into action before a dispute worsens.

A Punjab police officer who has overseen several investigations in blasphemy cases says burden of proof of innocence is on the blasphemy accused; s/he cannot move freely and is exposed to threats.

"FIRs are registered due to pressure of highly charged groups," he admits.

"The police often keep blasphemy accused in police stations other than where a case has been registered against them to protect them. They are vulnerable when taken to courts with other prisoners for hearings. There should be an amendment in the jail manual on how to protect them from assaults," he says.

The officer says pre-emptive measures, such as checking the misuse of loud speakers and hate speech and making interventions where quarrel is likely can improve the situation.

Asad Jamal, researcher and human rights lawyer, says "blasphemy offences under Chapter XV PPC are cognizable. Sec 156-A was introduced through Criminal Law Amendment Act 2004 (I of 2005) which made it mandatory that investigation in offences reported under 295-C to be carried out by an officer no less a rank than SP. There was an assumption that lower rank police officer was incapable of withstanding pressure that accompanies a complaint under section 295-C, therefore a senior police officer would be able do a better job. The assumptions have proved to be wrong in about a decade since the amendment was introduced," he adds.

The procedural amendment, in any case, is not followed in all cases, he adds.

According to him, it is clear that rules have not been framed in view of the procedural change. Superintendents of Police, even if assigned the job of investigation, do not necessarily conduct the whole investigation by themselves.

For instance, in Aasiya Bibi’s case judgment of the trial court paragraph 5-6 clearly informs that both the concerned SPs and sub-inspectors conducted the investigation.

Jamal believes even if the blasphemy offences are made non-cognizable by the police, the floodgates which remain open due to the presence of these laws on the book, will not be stopped. "The magistrates will be under-pressure and proceed ahead with the prosecution of fake complaints," he adds.

Jamal says in case of women the law envisages special concessions to under trial women prisoners. The timeframe specified for UT women prisoners for eligibility to statutory bail is half of the time frame for male. A woman prisoner is entitled to statutory bail if she is accused of any offence not punishable with death and has been detained for over six months.

In case of an offence punishable with death the accused woman prisoner is entitled to statutory bail if the trial has not concluded in one year. This is practically not possible in high profile cases. In Aasia’s case, Jamal says, she was accused of blasphemy and arrested in June 2009 and trial concluded in November 2011 -- "but it was unthinkable in her case that she could get bail".