Arya News - The Supreme Court gave greater weight to unanimous findings by specialised psychiatric panels than to an earlier evaluation by a single psychiatrist. The court also underscored the genetic and episodic nature of bipolar disorder, noting that both brothers shared the diagnosis independently.
ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court on Saturday acquitted two brothers in a blasphemy case under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), setting aside their death sentences earlier upheld by the Lahore High Court (LHC) over a decade ago.
A three-judge SC bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi and comprising Justices Shakeel Ahmad and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, took up criminal appeals against the Sept 17, 2015 decision of the LHC.
The brothers, Liaqat Ali and Umar Draz, have spent around 20 years behind bars. They were convicted by a sessions judge in Jhang on March 27, 2006. The trial court sentenced both brothers to death and imposed a fine of Rs500,000 each, with five years’ rigorous imprisonment in default. The high court dismissed their appeals and upheld the convictions.
The main SC judgement was authored by Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim. Justice Shakeel Ahmad concurred with the order but also annexed an additional note.
According to the complaint, Umar Draz had begun making explicit blasphemous statements, leading to a marital dispute between him and his wife that culminated in divorce on March 13, 2006. Draz explicitly affirmed in writing his conversion from Islam in the divorce papers.
During the return of his former wife’s dowry articles, a written document authored by co-appellant Liaqat Ali was recovered. It also contained blasphemous assertions.
On March 18, 2006, when the complainant and witnesses confronted the brothers over the alleged blasphemous material, both appellants acknowledged and verified the contents of the documents and unequivocally declared their willingness to reiterate their assertions before any forum.
Before the SC, their counsel confined his submissions to the plea of mental unsoundness, arguing that the appellants lacked the requisite mens rea (guilty mind) at the time of the alleged offence.
The SC examined three psychiatric assessments. An initial three-member medical board at DHQ Hospital, Faisalabad, found both appellants mentally sound in 2007. However, an eight-member Board of Certification diagnosed them with “bipolar affective disorder with psychotic symptoms” in 2023.
A nine-member Board of Certification in September 2025 concluded that both brothers were suffering from “bipolar disorder current episode manic”. It described the condition as a chronic illness that was most likely permanent in acute cases, with absent insight and an inability to understand their acts at the time.
The SC observed that the unanimous opinions of specialised boards comprising senior professors of psychiatry carried greater weight than the earlier assessment by a board with only one psychiatrist.
It also noted that bipolar disorder was episodic and had a genetic component, and that both brothers had been independently diagnosed with the same condition.
“The appellants have spent around 20 years behind bars. In the light of the opinion of medical board which raises doubts regarding the culpability of the appellants, the benefit of doubt cannot be withheld from the appellants,” the judgement said.
While acquitting the appellants, the SC also expected the executive director of the Punjab Institute of Mental Health, Lahore, to ensure that their medical treatment was not discontinued.
Additional note
In his concurring note, Justice Ahmad agreed with the acquittal but cautioned that a psychiatric diagnosis alone did not satisfy the requirements of Section 84 of the PPC.
The judge distinguished medical insanity from legal insanity, noting that the key question was whether, at the time of the offence, the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law.
He argued that legal accountability had to be balanced with humanity, explaining that true justice also included mercy when the law recognised a person’s lack of mental capacity.
The note said the medical reports, along with the surrounding circumstances, created reasonable doubt. It also referred to Islamic principles of legal capacity and responsibility.