A judge of the district court of Lahore ordered the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to proceed under the law if a cognizable offense was confronted after having received the opinion of the Ulema commission on a petition requesting a FIR against the former president Dr Arif Alvi for his alleged blasphemous remarks in a video which circulated on the social media.
However, the additional district judge and the Shafqat Shahbaz Raja sessions eliminated the petition, deposited by Shehzada Adnan through the Mudassir Chaudhry lawyer, saying that former president Alvi had used an alleged blasphemous language in a video broadcast on the Internet.
The FIA, in its response to the petition, said that a regular investigation had been recorded and marked in Abdul Basit, sub-inspector of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA). The petitioner joined the investigation procedure and submitted evidence concerning his complaint.
The video in question of former president Alvi had been sent to the Board of Directors of Olemas for a Fatwa, and the procedures would be finalized solely on merit after having received the response from the Council. The FIA said that the investigation was forced to continue after receiving the advice of the Ulema Board of Directors.
The petitioner’s lawyer opposed the position of the FIA, arguing that the Fatwa of the Ulema had no relevance for the recording of the FIR. He also argued that everything in the video clip was not audible.
However, judge Raja eliminated the request, ordering the FIA to conclude the procedure after receiving the response from the Board of Directors of the Ulemas and, if a cognizable offense has been practiced, to continue the law.
Earlier, another court had rejected the petition because the petitioner had approached an inappropriate forum. This court noted that the government had created the NCCIA to deal with social media issues. Consequently, the petitioner could approach the NCCIA for the repair of his grievance.
Earlier, the petitioner approached the police (an inappropriate forum) for the repair of his grievances.
After that, the petitioner approached the district court again and the sessions looking for a FIR against Dr. Alvi.
