Abstract
While discussing the law and morality, H. L. A. Hart stated: “Reflection on this aspect of things reveals a sobering truth: the step from the simple form of society, where primary rules of obligation are the only means of social control, into the legal world with its centrally organized legislature, courts, officials, and sanctions brings its solid gains at a certain cost.”2 (emphasis supplied) In contradistinction to Hart’s ‘legal world’ that comprises legal institutions and procedures, the judgement in Asia Bibi Case3 was pegged into religious reasoning. From a jurisprudential point of view, while there is no harm in the use of religious reasoning, the unintended consequence of it is that it imports normative assessment, and by implication, the Natural Law gets applied. Most interestingly, the authors of the judgement applied the Natural Law to invoke the jurisdiction, but during the course of the judgement, they applied the standards of the Positive Law to appraise the evidence. The use of both the Natural and the Positive Law devices has given rise to methodical problems leading to uncertainty and inconsistency, which might ultimately affect the stare decisis value of the judgement.