ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has rejected the prayer of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader advocate Latif Khosa to transfer 9th May accused from military custody to regular jails.

A seven-judge bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Mussarat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal, on Tuesday, heard ICAs against the judgment regarding trial of civilians by military courts and various other cases.

During the proceedings, the additional attorney general (AAG) requested a postponement of the hearing, stating that the Defence Ministry’s lawyer, Khawaja Haris, was ill and unable to attend due to stomach issues. The bench accepting the request deferred further proceedings until Thursday.

May 9 cases: ATC issues arrest warrants of 11 PTI leaders

Latif Khosa, representing some of the accused who are in military custody requested to transfer the detainees to civilian jails, so that families can meet with them.

Justice Amin rejected the request, saying that AAG Aamir Rehman had already assured the court that necessary arrangements would be made for family meetings. He asked Khosa that they are sitting to hear the legal questions rather than procedural concerns.

The bench also dismissed a petition filed by a citizen, Abdul Qayyum to shift Imran Khan from Adiala Jail to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Justice Amin inquired from him which of his fundamental rights is infringed. Turning down his petition, the court imposed upon him Rs20,000 fine.

Justice Mazhar asked the petitioner that three lawyers of PTI founder were present before the bench today but none of them made such request. He said if Imran Khan has any issue in this regard then he would file the petition.

Hearing a federation’s contempt petition against PTI founder Imran Khan for violating SC’s order, Justice Amin inquired whether the government genuinely intended to pursue the petition. The AAG responded affirmatively, saying that the government sought a serious hearing on the matter.

The Supreme Court on May 24, 2022 had instructed the PTI to hold its Azadi March protest on May 25 near Peshawar Mor between the H-9 and G-9 areas of Islamabad. However, Imran and his protesters made their way toward D-Chowk, prompting the government to call in the army for the security of the federal capital’s Red Zone. The federal government; therefore; had filed contempt petition against Imran Khan.

During the proceeding, the AAG said that the founder of PTI has violated the Supreme Court’s order. Justice Amin said if the Court issues notice to Imran Khan then the government would have to produce him before it. He asked the AAG to take instruction from the government in this regard.

Justice Mandokhail remarked that the contempt matter is between the Court and the contemnor, urging the parties not to become emotional as the court was offering a way forward.

Salman Akram Raja, appearing on behalf of Imran Khan, submitted that he filed the reply of contempt petition. The ex-PM in his reply has maintained that he was unaware of any statement or undertaking submitted to the court on behalf of the “senior leadership” of his party ahead of the ‘May 25 march’.

The case is adjourned for an indefinite period.

The bench on the petition of PTI founder to form commission for judicial inquiry of May 9 incidents removed the SC registrar’s objections and directed the office to allot number to the petition.

The AAG argued that one of the objections raised by Registrar’s Office was that the matter is not of public interest. He said the federal government would present its point of view on the instant petition.

Hamid Khan, another PTI lawyer, contended that more than a year and a half had passed without clarity on what transpired that day, therefore, judicial commission be set up to probe the 9th May events.

He submitted that hundreds of FIRs have been registered against PTI leaders and workers, including Imran Khan, regarding May 9 incidents.

Justice Mandokhail said that FIRs is a legal issue, which will be decided by the courts. Justice Hilali said even if the Commission is set up it would only fix the responsibility, adding its report would not have any effect on criminal cases.

Justice Mandokhail questioned why the petitioner had not approached the high court, to which, Hamid responded that the matter was of national significance, necessitating a Supreme Court hearing.

Justice Aminuddin noted that the objections of the Registrar’s Office seemed valid but allowed the petitioner to explain. Hamid assured the court that once the objections were addressed, he would provide arguments on the merits of the case.

The constitutional bench, subsequently, overruled the registrar’s objections, but Justice Aminuddin reminded the lawyer that he would need to satisfy the court on the substantive questions when the case is rescheduled.

The AAG pointed out that the petitioner’s claim of public interest was yet to be argued. Justice Aminuddin clarified that the current proceedings were only addressing procedural objections and not the merits of the case.

The court acknowledged the urgency expressed by various parties but adjourned the hearing indefinitely.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024