This paper provides a critical appraisal of the Supreme Court judgement in the long-running and infamous case against Asia Bibi, a Pakistani Christian woman, accused of blasphemy in 2009. While the judgement is hailed as a landmark ruling, this paper argues that apart from acquitting the accused, it changes little else in the political and legal landscape of the country. The judgement relies on colonial assumptions about the nature of religious conflict in order to defend the blasphemy laws of Pakistan. This approach of the court tacitly affirms the discourses on the Islamic identity of the state that justify the marginalisation of religious minorities. The judgement reinforces the death penalty for blasphemy even as it recognises the almost ubiquitous misuse and problematic nature of Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code. The court defends both the existence and the perpetuity of blasphemy laws pre-eminently on religious grounds rather than the constitution. This magnifies the grievances of Muslims ahead of the objections and concerns religious minorities in Pakistan have long raised. The court fails to seriously engage with the question of how the constitutional rights and liberties of religious minorities can be preserved so long as the law continues to endure.