2. The Quadianis who are followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Quadian (hereinafter to be called Mirza Sahib) are divided into two groups, both of whom are, however, called by the name of Ahmadis.

3. One group which is generally known as Quadiani group believes that Mirza Sahib was the promised Mehdi, the promised Messiah and Prophet. The Lahori group says that he was a Mujaddid (revivalist), the Promised Mehdi and the promised Messiah.

4. Two Petitions one by some members of the Quadiani group and another by two members of Lahori group bearing Nos. 17/I of 1984 and 2/L of 1984 were filed to challenge the Vires of the Ordinance vis-à-vis the Quran and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.).

5. The matter was heard in detail for more than four weeks Mr. Mujibur-Rehman, one of the Petitioners in Shariat Petition No. 17/L of 1984 and Capt. (Retd) Abdul-Wajid, one of the Petitioners in Shariat Petition No. 2/L of 1984, argued the case on behalf of the petitioners. Shaikh Ghias Muhammad, Advocate and Dr. Riazul-Hasan Gillani argued the matter on behalf of the Government. The following Juris-Consults and Ulema belonging to the different schools of thought were invited by the court to rendering assistance to it on the issues involved in the matter and argued the matter in detail:-

7. Article 106 dealt with the constitution of Provincial Assemblies which specified the number of Members to be elected for the Assemblies, their qualifications and also the additional seats in those assemblies reserved for non-Muslims i.e. Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Budhist and Parsi communities. To these communities were added by the second Constitutional Amendment of 1974 "persons of the Quadiani Group or the Lahori Group (who call themselves Ahmadis)"

8. Thus effect of Article 106 was given by declaration made in Sub-Article 3 of Article 260 and Ahmadis of either persuasion were placed in juxtaposition with other minorities.

9. Despite these provisions of the Constitution, the Ahmadis persisted in calling themselves Muslims and their faith as Islam. They remained impetuously apathetic and insensitive to the perturbation of the Muslims of Pakistan. However, their violation of the above Constitutional provisions and of continuing to defile the epithets, descriptions and titles like Ummul-Momineen (Mother of the Muslims), Ahle-Bait (Members of the family of the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.) Sahaaba (Companions) Khulafa-e-Rashideen (the rightful Caliphs) Ameerul-Momineen, Khalifat-ul-Momineen, Khalifat-ul-Muslimeen (epithets used generally for the Muslim Rulers and for the rightful Caliphs) which are exclusive for the Muslims and had never been used by the non-Muslims, for the wife, members of the family, companions and successors respectively of Mirza Sahib. For this reason use of derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy personages was made criminal offence punishable under Section 298-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) (recently added by Ordinance No. XLIV of 1980). The section is as follows:-

298- A

10. This Section was couched in general terms and was not made applicable to Ahmadis only. On account of the agitation of the Muslims over the persistence of the Ahmadis, the impugned Ordinance was promulgated. It added Section 298-B and 298-C to the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) and made consequential amendments in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898) and West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963. Sections 298-B and 298-C are as follows:-

298-C

11- These Sections made it a criminal offence for an Ahmadi.-

12. The main ground on which these Petitions have been filed and which was argued from different angles is that the impugned Ordinance violates the Sharia and the Constitutional rights of the Ahmadis to profess, practise and preach or propagate their religion.

13. It is pertinent to note that despite the Constitutional provisions, the Petitioners in their arguments insisted upon calling themselves Muslims and calling their faith as Islam and submitted that the Constitutional Amendment was not a declaration of their being non-Muslims by a religious body but was the Act of the Ruling Party of that time. It was pointed out to the Petitioners that the Constitutional Amendment was unanimously passed by all parties and the Parliament had given this verdict almost in a judicial manner by hearing both sides including the head of the Ahmadia community.

14. Mr. Mujibur Rehman stated that since the Court cannot decide against the Constitutional provisions he would not like to raise the question whether Quadianis are Muslims or non-Muslims. He, however, persisted in emphasising that the Quadianis as such are not non-Muslims but have been declared so by the Iqtidar-e-Aala.

15. He, then, clarified that if the Counsel for the Government argued that the Quadianis are non-Muslims according to Shariah too he would like to refute that argument in detail.