Moved by Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar, the bill includes four new amendments, with the minister repeatedly assuring the House that nothing in this legislation contradicts the Qur’an or Sunnah. He urged lawmakers to avoid politicizing the issue, saying the bill aims only to protect marginalized communities.
The atmosphere in the chamber remained tense and restless, with opposition benches erupting into slogans at several moments. Presiding over the session, Speaker Ayaz Sadiq continued with the agenda even as disagreements simmered beneath the surface.
During the debate, JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman advised restraint, warning that certain groups might exploit grey areas if the House failed to tread carefully. He pressed the government to clearly explain why the bill was being introduced at this time.
PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan echoed similar concerns, emphasizing that while minority protection is essential, not a single comma of the law should run contrary to Islamic principles. He urged a more transparent and wide ranging discussion before passing the bill.
Further objections came from JUI Senator Kamran Murtaza, who pointed specifically to Section 12(h) and Section 35, cautioning that these clauses could potentially clash with existing judicial powers.
In response, Minister Tarar insisted that the authority of courts remains fully intact, adding that proposals to revise or remove the commission’s suo motu powers were being accommodated.
The discussion took a sharper turn when Maulana Fazlur Rehman warned that the government might be underestimating the craftiness of certain groups, urging the House not to unpack a new box of troubles.
PPP leader Qadir Patel also objected strongly. Declaring that some matters carry immense spiritual responsibility, he said, If the honor of the Holy Prophet ﷺ is touched, I will stand in opposition. I request the Law Minister to reconsider. Moments later, Patel staged a walkout as the Speaker initiated voting.
Although the chamber twice echoed louder with No than Yes, the formal vote told a different story, 160 members supported the bill, while 79 voted against it.
During clause by clause approval, the House agreed to JUI-F’s proposal to amend Section 35 and to withdraw the commission’s suo motu powers, reflecting an effort to ease some of the most contentious concerns.
