ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court of Pakistan has retracted its earlier judgements in the high-profile Mubarak Sani case. The decision came after religious scholars raised objections to certain sections of the rulings.
The controversy started when the federal government and the Punjab government submitted applications to the court on July 24. They requested corrections in the judgements issued on February 6 and July 24. Following this, the Supreme Court issued notices to 19 prominent scholars. These scholars expressed concerns over three specific paragraphs—7, 42, and 49—in the rulings.
Upon reviewing the objections, the court held hearings to listen to the scholars’ arguments. As a result, the Supreme Court decided to remove the paragraphs in question. The court concluded that these sections might have caused misunderstandings or conflicts with religious principles.
Read: MQM Ties Support for Amendment to Local Government Powers
In its final ruling, the court acknowledged the scholars’ concerns and emphasized the importance of maintaining harmony between legal decisions and religious values. The retraction of the earlier judgements marked a significant shift in the case, indicating the court’s willingness to reconsider its decisions when substantial objections are raised.
SC ordered to proceed the bail case independently
Moreover, the Supreme Court ordered the trial court to proceed with the bail case independently. This move gives the trial court the freedom to make its own decision without being influenced by the previous judgements. Legal experts believe this step will ensure a more transparent process moving forward.
The case of Mubarak Sani has drawn widespread attention, both for its legal complexities and the involvement of religious scholars. The case’s implications stretch beyond the individual matter, shedding light on how religious perspectives can impact judicial decisions in Pakistan.
The retraction of the Supreme Court’s previous rulings in this case highlights the judiciary’s responsiveness to valid concerns raised by scholars. This decision is expected to set a precedent for future cases involving similar religious sensitivities. At the same time, the court’s directive for the trial court to operate independently ensures that justice will continue to be served without undue influence from prior rulings.
Follow us on Google News, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook,Whats App, and TikTok for latest updates
