In Tahir Naqash, Petitioners, members of the Ahmadi community, were booked under Sections 298-B and 298-C PPC for styling their place of worship as a mosque, displaying sha’air-e-Islam (including the Kalima), and keeping copies of the Holy Qur’an inside. Initially, charges were framed under Sections 298-B and 298-C only. Later, on application of the complainant, the trial court added Sections 295-B and 295-C PPC (defiling the Qur’an; blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him). This was challenged.
Held: The Supreme Court while deleting the additional charges against the petitioners reaffirmed the fundamental right to dignity and freedom of religionas enshrined in Article 14 read with Article 20 of the Constitution of Pakistan, emphasizing that every individual, including non-Muslim minorities, possesses inherent equal worth and should be free to profess and practice their religion without obstruction. The Court highlighted that depriving a non-Muslim of their religious beliefs or obstructing their worship is not only against democratic principles but also deeply disfigures human dignity. It reaffirmed that while Ahmadis are declared non-Muslims under Article 260(3), they remain citizens entitled to all fundamental rights, including dignity (Art. 14), freedom of religion (Art. 20), and equality before law (Art. 25). Obstructing their private worship violates constitutional values of tolerance and minority protection. The Court thus distinguished between public propagation (restricted under 298-B/C) and private practice (protected under Art. 20),
Selected Passages:
“To deprive a non-Muslim (minority) from holding his religious beliefs, to obstruct him from professing and practicing his religion within the four walls of his place of worship is against the grain of our democratic Constitution and repugnant to the spirit and character of our Islamic Republic. It also deeply bruises and disfigures human dignity and the right to privacy of a non-Muslim minority
…[t]he constitutional values enshrined in the preamble to our Constitution which require us to be tolerant as a people, believe in freedom, equality and social justice, and respect our minorities and make adequate provisions for them to freely profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures and to safeguard their legitimate interests. All citizens of Pakistan, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, are guaranteed fundamental rights under the Constitution including equality of status, freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship subject to law and public morality.
Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees right to dignity to every person. Human dignity encapsulates the notion that every person has inherent equal worth… no one can be dismissed, ignored, mistreated or abused as if their humanity means nothing
Article 260(3)… though declares the Ahmadis/Qadianis as non-Muslim, it neither disowns them as citizens of Pakistan nor deprives them of their entitlement to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution”
PLD 2022 SC 385
In Ameen , a Christian petitioner challenged the 1981 repeal of Section 7 of the Divorce Act, 1869, arguing that it unconstitutionally restricted Pakistani Christians to only adultery-based divorce, contrary to global Christian jurisdictions and fundamental/minority rights.
Held: The Lahore High Court declared the 1981 repeal unconstitutional and restored Section 7, thereby making UK Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973 principles (including irretrievable breakdown/no-fault divorce) available to Christians in Pakistan alongside Section 10.
Selected Passages:
“Right to family life is a daughter-right of human dignity. It has been said of this daughter-right that it “is one of the fundamentals of human existence… The impugned amendment limits the choice of a person to divorce and forces a person to lead an unhappy and an oppressive life unless he or she can prove the charge of adultery against the spouse. This limitation perpetuates a dead marriage and impairs the quality of life and curtails the liberty of a person by forcing him to live through an unhappy family life against his free choice.”
PLD 2017 Lah 610
