Constitutional bench admits Imran’s plea for judicial probe into May 9 incidents

ISLAMABAD: The constitutional bench on Tuesday admitted for regular hearing former prime minister Imran Khan’s petition seeking a judicial inquiry into the May 9 incidents. The bench directed its office to fix the case after assigning a number to the instant petitions.

A seven-member constitutional bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, heard multiple cases. Other members of the bench comprise Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan and Justice Musarat Hilali.

Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman submitted before the court that one of the objections of the Registrar’s office was related to maintainability of the instant petition, hence the federal government will extensively argue on the question of maintainability. Similarly, he contended that the instant petition was not worthy of public importance. Hamid Khan, counsel for Imran Khan, however, submitted that it has been a year and a half and at least one should know as to what happened on May 9. He submitted that there was an undeclared martial law in the country adding that the army is called during protests. At this, Justice Musarat Hilali remarked that in martial law, they come by themselves and are not called.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed the army was called under Article 245 of the Constitution, asking the counsel as to if he was calling it martial law, then he should also challenge it. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail observed that the learned counsel was giving a sweeping statement by calling it a martial law. “Is there any order of any authority which you are challenging,” Justice Mandokhail asked Hamid Khan. Hamid Khan, however, contended that hundreds of FIRs were registered after the May 9 incidents adding that one party was pushed to the wall.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail observed that matters relating to FIRs would ultimately be decided by the courts. The judge asked the counsel as to why he did not approach the High Court. Hamid Khan replied that this was not a matter of any province but of the entire country and that’s why they moved the Supreme Court. Hamid Khan further submitted that the Registrar’s office was objecting that it was not a matter of public interest. “But you should give a solid reason,” Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan asked Hamid Khan and added that prima facia the objections raised by the Registrar’s office should not be removed.

Hamid Khan replied that if the bench removed the objections and heard the matter in hand on merits, then he would satisfy the bench. Justice Musarat Hilali observed that even if the judicial commission was established, it would only determine responsibility and its report would not impact the ongoing criminal cases. The bench later removed the objections of the Registrar’s office and directed the office to fix the case after assigning a number to the case. The bench admitted the petition for a regular hearing while Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan asked Hamid Khan if he would have to satisfy the bench on the questions asked. Consequently, the bench adjourned the matter for date-in-office (indefinite period)

Earlier, the Supreme Court was informed that the federal government was serious about pursuing the contempt case against the founding Chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) for violating the court’s order during the long march on May 25, 2022.

The bench took up the contempt petition filed by the federal government against PTI founder Imran Khan for violating the court’s order on May 25, 2022. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan asked Additional Attorney General Chaudhry Aamir Rehman if the government intends to proceed with its contempt petition. The Additional Attorney General submitted before the court that the federal government was serious in pursuing the contempt petition adding that the PTI founder Imran Khan had violated the court’s order during the long march on May 25, 2022.

Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan then told the law officer that if the court issued a notice, the PTI founder would have to appear in person before the court. The judge directed the Additional Attorney General to seek instructions from the federal government on producing the former Prime Minister Imran Khan before the court. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail observed that the matter of contempt is between the court and the accused person.

Advocate Salman Akram Raja, representing Iman Khan, informed the bench that his client had already filed his reply adding that he did not receive the verbal order of the court due to disruption of mobile service that resulted from hindrance in communication between the legal team and his client. Justice Musarat Hilali asked the learned counsel as to whether they had received the court’s notice to which Raja replied in affirmative saying after the notice, his client submitted a reply. The bench adjourned the hearing for date-in-office (indefinite period) after directing the Additional Attorney General to seek instruction from the government.

Likewise, the bench, while hearing the Asghar Khan case, sought a comprehensive report from the federal government on the abolition of political cells in sensitive institutions. The bench directed Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman to submit a report on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. The Additional Attorney General informed the bench that political cells were abolished in sensitive institutions after the verdict given in the Asghar Khan case. “This means there were political cells in sensitive institutions,” Justice Musarat Hilali remarked.

The bench sought a comprehensive report from the federal government on the abolition of political cells in sensitive institutions. Salman Akram Raja, advocate, told the court that it is an admitted fact that there were political cells in sensitive institutions. He, however, questioned as to what action was taken against those who stole the 1990 election adding that General Aslam Baig, Lt General Asad Durrani and Younas Habib had admitted the elections were stolen. Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman, however, contended that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has closed the inquiry into the Asghar Khan case. Justice Syed Hassan Rizvi asked the law officer as to whether the money distributed among the politicians has been recovered adding that there were big political names among whom the money was distributed.

The Additional Attorney General, however, replied that no evidence of money distribution was found in the FIA inquiry adding that Asghar Khan was the petitioner and he has passed away. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, however, asked the law officer as to whether the FIA has done the work that was required to do so.

The judge further questioned as to whether heads of sensitive institutions have given an affidavit regarding abolition of political cell. Additional Attorney General, however, contended that sensitive institutions have no role in politics under the Constitution and law. At this, Justice Mandokhail asked the law officer to take now affidavit from the heads of the sensitive institutions, if not taken so far. The law officer, however, submitted that the Asghar Khan case decision has been implemented adding that the political cell in sensitive institutions was abolished after a court order. Again, Justice Mandokhail asked the law officer that FIA should satisfy the court that the court decision has been implemented. The bench sought a report from the Ministry of Defence on the matter and adjourned the hearing.

Likewise, the bench, while hearing a plea seeking the transfer of PTI founder Imran Khan from Adiala jail to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), dismissed the petition after imposing a fine of Rs20,000 on the petitioner Qayyum Khan. During the hearing, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that if the PTI’s founder had any problem, he would apply himself adding that three of the lawyers were still in court today but none of them had made such a request.

Similarly, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail observed that the prisoner’s family or he can make such requests. The petitioner, Qayyum Khan, however, submitted that this was a national problem not a problem of an individual. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked the petitioner to think about national issues after becoming a member of parliament. Later, the court dismissed the petition imposing a fine of Rs20,000 on the petitioner.

Similarly, the bench adjourned the hearing in Intra Court Appeals (ICAs) filed by the federal government against the apex court judgment, declaring the trial of civilians in military courts unconstitutional. Additional Attorney General informed the bench that Khwaja Harris, counsel for the Ministry of Defence could not turn up due to sickness and sought an adjournment in the matter.

The court accepted the request and adjourned the matter until Thursday. The bench also rejected the plea of advocate Latif Khosa seeking the transfer of detainees to normal jails. He pleaded that at least the family members of detainees should be allowed to meet them. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, however, told Khosa that the Attorney General had already assured the court regarding the meeting. “We are hearing the instant CMAs, therefore, do not go to any other side for now,” Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan added.