A Lahore district court on Thursday granted the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) a four-day physical remand of anchorperson Orya Maqbool Jan in connection with his social media posts related to the Mubarak Sani case.
Jan was detained by the FIA’s cybercrime wing earlier that day at its Gulberg office in Lahore, as confirmed by his lawyer. He was subsequently presented before the court.
During the court proceedings, the FIA sought a 14-day physical remand of the anchorperson. However, Jan’s lawyer, Advocate Mian Ali Ashfaq, argued that his client had not insulted anyone, claiming that the FIA’s charges were baseless and unsupported by evidence. He requested the court to dismiss the case against his client.
Conversely, the FIA’s investigation officer (IO) asserted that the allegations against Jan were legitimate and that he had been uncooperative during the investigation. The IO claimed to have “concrete evidence” against the anchorperson.
When Jan took the stand, he stated that he had provided the FIA with all the passwords to his social media accounts and questioned the need for a remand by rhetorically asking, “Have I stolen someone’s car that needs to be recovered?”
After hearing the arguments, Judicial Magistrate Imran Abid approved a four-day remand and directed the IO to present an investigation report.
The context of the case dates back to February 6, when a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa overturned the conviction of Mubarak Sani. Sani had been accused in 2019 under the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording) (Amendment) Act. The court found that the alleged offense had not been criminalized until 2021 and ordered Sani’s immediate release.
This decision sparked a “malicious and slanderous campaign” against the Chief Justice, according to government and legal community sources, prompting the Supreme Court to issue a clarification. The Punjab government later challenged the decision, particularly the section of the order related to Article 20 of the Constitution, arguing that citizens’ rights under this provision are not absolute and are subject to law, public order, and morality. Various groups, including religio-political parties, have protested the decision, even breaching the security of the Supreme Court during their rallies.
