Religious freedom subject to law, policy and morality: Federal Constitu­tional Court

• Court upholds ban on 23-volume Ahmadi publication
• Ruling notes ban was based on Ulema board’s decision, merely conveyed by chief secretary’s office

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitu­tional Court (FCC) on Tuesday affirmed that fundamental rights, including the right to religious freedom, are not absolute but must be balanced against broader public considerations.

The observation came while dismissing a series of petitions challenging the government’s ban on a 23-volume Ahmadiyya publication.

Headed by Justice Aamer Farooq, a two-judge bench, also comprising Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, delivered the consolidated judgement, rejecting petitions filed by Muhammad Abdul Qadoos and several others against notifications issued by the Punjab government under Section 99-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Section 19 of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002.

The petitioners had challenged the Oct 13, 2025, and April 30, 2024, judgements of the Lahore High Court, as well as its Multan bench, which had dismissed their petitions on the grounds of laches and their failure to avail themselves of an alternate remedy within the prescribed limitation period.

In their appeal before the FCC, the petitioners challenged the legality of Notification No. SO (IS-III) 6-15/2010, issued by the Punjab Home Department on June 25, 2014, under Section 99-A of the CrPC. Through the notification, Rohani Khazayeen, Volumes 1 to 23 was banned and all its copies ordered to be forfeited.

The petitioners also contended that the executive action banning the publications had infringed upon their right to religious freedom guaranteed under Article 20 of the Constitution.

Authored by Justice Farooq, the 13-page judgement explained that Article 20 guarantees religious freedom subject to law, public policy and morality. It also rebuffed the petitioners’ claim that Article 20 had been violated, observing that determining the validity of the ban and forfeiture required careful examination of the strength and underlying reasoning of the action taken under the CrPC and relevant ordinance.

The judgement said the court could not proceed on mere assumptions, particularly in the absence of the actual material on record due to the petitioners’ failure to avail themselves of the appropriate remedies.

“It is restated that the assertion of the counsel for the petitioners that the impugned actions on part of the executive violate their Religious Freedom clause seems to be an afterthought and was nothing more than wittering on about the subject of Fundamental Rights in general and Religious Freedom clause in particular,” the judgement observed.

It added that instead of attempting to show the court the content of the material and its impact, the petitioners’ counsel had made a general discourse.

The judgement highlighted that under the Punjab Rules of Business, 2011, authority had been duly delegated to the provincial government and, since the home department was responsible for taking action in such matters, it had acted competently.

Regarding the allegation that the publications had been forfeited without application of mind, the judgement explained that, according to the record, an Ulema board had been constituted which, after deliberations, decided that the material in the volumes could cause hatred among the Muslim community and recommended that it be forfeited.

The judgement said the impugned forfeiture action emanated from the office of the Chief Secretary. However, the determinative inquiry was not the identity of the functionary but the legal source of the power exercised.

In the present case, the authority was clearly traceable to statutory instruments, namely the CrPC and the ordinance. These enactments expressly empowered the chief secretary to undertake the measure taken, thereby placing the action within a statutorily conferred framework rather than the realm of unfettered executive discretion, the judgement explained.

In conclusion, the FCC dismissed all petitions, refused leave to appeal and disposed of all pending applications.

Published in Dawn, September 9th, 2026