No inhuman treatment to May 9 suspects, SC tells govt

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the federal government to ensure that no inhuman treatment is meted out to the May 9 suspects in military custody.

A seven-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, heard the Intra Court Appeals (ICAs) of the federal government, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Defence and others against the apex court judgement declaring the trial of 103 May 9 suspects by military courts as unconstitutional. Other members of the bench are Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Bilal Shahid.

The court adjourned the hearing for date-in-office after granting permission to advocate Khwaja Haris to argue on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.

During the hearing, Justice Irfan directed the Attorney General (AG) Mansoor Usman that there should be no inhuman treatment with human beings. In pursuance of the court’s last order, the AG submitted that the members of suspects’ families would be allowed to meet them once a week.

Latif Khosa advocate, counsel for some of the suspects, came to rostrum and informed the court that son of one detainee Mian Iqbal has recently died. Khosa wanted to speak further, but Justice Irfan asked Khosa to avoid interruption in the court’s proceedings, adding the court wants to start the proceedings on the appeals.

During the hearing, Brigadier Imran Ahmed appeared before the court, and on a query submitted that he is Director (Legal), Ministry of Defence, and focal person for arranging the meetings of the families with detainees. “How the family members can contact you if they want to meet their near and dear ones?” Justice Mandokhail asked the military official. “They have my number as well,” the official replied.

Justice Mazhar, while addressing the AG, said that usually the court has to see error in the main judgement. “Therefore, you have to point out error in the main judgement,” the judge asked the AG.

Justice Shahid Waheed asked the AG if the main bench gives its decision and someone comes with an appeal seeking annulment of the main judgement. then what is the scope for changing the main judgement. “Without telling us the error, you want us to give a separate decision in the appeal,” Justice Waheed asked the AG. The AG replied that the court has the power to examine the original judgement under Section 5 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 where there was a wide scope of appeal.

Justice Waheed asked the AG as to whether the appeal filed in the apex court was approved by the cabinet. The AG replied that the approval of cabinet was not required but it has to look into the situation as to whether an appeal can be filed or not. The AG explained that under Rule 14, the federal government conducts its business, adding that they approached the Law Division to get its advice, and it was advised that the federal government could file an appeal. “The federal government is mandated to defend the law and hence came to this court,” the AG contended.

Meanwhile, the attorney general submitted that advocate Khwaja Haris is present in the court who will represent the Ministry of Defence, adding that if the court has more questions, he will be present in the courtroom. When Khwaja Haris took the rostrum, Justice Aminuddin Khan asked the counsel that this case apparently came to the court regarding the incidents happened on May 9. “What legal provisions could be challenged in this case, you have to tell us,” Justice Aminuddin asked Khwaja Haris.

Faisal Siddiqui advocate appeared on video link from Karachi and informed the court that he has filed two CMAs contending that no private counsel could represent the federal government. Siddiqui pleaded the court to first take up his two applications or they will become infructuous, adding that the court has many times discouraged the practice of private counsels appearing to represent the government. He submitted that the court has the power to decide his two applications as to whether a private counsel could argue on the appeal of the federal government.

The AG, however, cited the case of Rashid Ahmed that has given weightage to hiring private counsels for government institutions. Justice Rizvi observed that if Khwaja Haris is not charging a fee for representing the Ministry of Defence, then he should be allowed to argue.

Meanwhile, the court granted permission to Khwaja Haris to argue on behalf of Ministry of Defence. Justice Waheed asked Haris as to whether a case could be transferred before indictment while Justice Mandokhail asked the counsel to argue on the jurisdiction of the case on the next date of hearing. Later, the court adjourned the hearing for date-in-office (indefinite period).