The Supreme Court’s (SC) constitutional bench on Tuesday dismissed the objections of the registrar’s office to a petition filed by incarcerated PTI founder Imran Khan seeking a judicial commission for the events of May 9 last year.
Nationwide violent protests erupted last year after the arrest of former premier Imran in a corruption case, with his supporters vandalising and torching military installations and government buildings. The state then launched a severe crackdown on his party, rounding up thousands of PTI workers and almost the entire top-tier leadership, with many still facing court proceedings under serious charges.
In a petition filed by Imran’s lawyer last year, the PTI chief had urged the SC to order the formation of a judicial commission to investigate the events of May 9.
Imran had contended that the alleged imposition of an “undeclared” martial law or calling in aid of the armed forces in Punjab, Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Islamabad was unconstitutional, unlawful and without any effect and all actions taken under the same were void.
The petition had also claimed that enough personnel were found available to control the situation indefinitely, arguing that it was more than obvious to any reasonable observer that the requisition of the armed forces was mala fide and in excess of jurisdiction
A seven-member constitutional bench comprising Justices Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, and Shahid Bilal Hassan resumed hearing on Imran’s petition today.
The Justice Aminuddin-headed bench dismissed the objections of the registrar’s office, ordering it to assign a number to the former premier’s application and schedule it for a hearing.
Earlier this month, while reiterating his call for the formation of a judicial commission, the former premier said that he was forming a five-member negotiating committee on two points: release of under-trial political prisoners … establishment of a judicial commission for transparent investigation of the events of May 9, 2023, and November 26, 2024.
A five-member negotiation team comprising Omar Ayub Khan, Ali Amin Gandapur, Sahibzada Hamid Raza, Salman Akram Raja and Asad Qaiser has been formed to negotiate with the government.
Hearing
Lawyer Hamid Khan appeared in the hearing on behalf of the petitioner, taking the position that it had been more than a one-and-a-half year since the May 9 event took place, arguing that the country should find out what happened on the day
“An undeclared martial law has been imposed in the country,” Hamid said, adding that the army was deployed whenever there was a call for protest.
Justice Hilali replied that “they [military forces] come by themselves in martial law”, and were not summoned. Justice Mazhar iterated that the army was summoned under Article 245 in the protests.
“In your petition, you have talked about deploying the military under Article 245 to support the civilian government,” Justice Mandokhail said, adding that such was written in the Constitution as well.
“You are making sweeping statements by calling it martial law,” Justice Mandokhail added.
Justice Mazhar told Hamid that he would have to challenge the constitutional authority under Article 245.
“How can you call a constitutional authority an undeclared martial law? How can the authority of Article 245 be questioned,” Justice Mazhar asked
Justice Mandokhail questioned Hamid about how the article was misused.
Additional Attorney General (AAG) Aamir Rehman appeared on the rostrum next and questioned how the matter was in the public interest. “Arguments are yet to be presented on this question,” he said.
Justice Aminuddin replied that only the objections of the registrar’s office were being cleared for now and the case had not been heard on its merits.
“We will listen to you. It seems as if everyone here is in a hurry,” the judge said.
Meanwhile, Hamid continued that hundreds of people, including Imran, were booked under May 9 cases. “A party is being pushed against the wall,” Hamid said.
In response, Justice Mandokhail said the first information reports filed were a legal matter and decisions on them would be taken by the courts.
Justice Hilali pointed out while talking about the application that even if a judicial commission was formed, it would only assign responsibility. “The judicial commission report would not have an impact on the criminal cases,” she added.
Justice Mandokhail asked Hamid why he had not approached the high courts in the matter, to which Imran’s lawyer said that the matter was not concerned with a province but the entire country.
“That is why we came to the SC,” Hamid said.
Hamid said that the registrar’s office objected to the petition as it did not deem it to be a matter of “public interest”.
Justice Aminuddin told him to present solid reasons for the petition, saying that on the face of it, the objections of the registrar’s office should not be dismissed.
“If you remove the objections and listen to the case on its merits, I will satisfy the court,” Hamid said.
Justice Aminuddin then told him: “You will have to satisfy us about the raised questions when the case is fixed again for hearing,” and indefinitely adjourned the hearing.
Plea to transfer Imran to KP dismissed
The bench also dismissed a petition by a citizen, Qayyum Khan, asking to transfer Imran from Adiala Jail to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
During the hearing, Justice Mazhar remarked that if Imran had any issues, he would file a petition himself. “Three PTI lawyers will be in court today as well, no lawyer gave any such petition.”
Justice Mandokhail remarked that the prisoner’s family, or he himself, could file such a petition.
The petitioner responded saying this was a national issue, not anyone’s personal one.
“You can think about national matters when you become a member of the National Assembly,” Justice Mandokhail reprimanded the petitioner with the court dismissing the petition and levying a fine of Rs20,000.
