ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned how a third party could be allowed to appeal when the parents of 20-year-old Shahzeb Khan, who was killed in Karachi’s Defence area in December 2012, or the state had not appealed against the Sindh High Court verdict setting aside terror charges against the suspect.

The apex court, however, issued a notice to Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf for Thursday with an observation that it was the duty of the court to apply correct law.

A civil rights lawyer, Faisal Siddiqi, had earlier requested the apex court in a joint appeal, moved by nearly a dozen civil society activists, to allow their challenge to the SHC verdict.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar questioned how a third party, some NGO or a civil society organisation could be allowed to appeal before the apex court when the aggrieved family or the state had not preferred such a challenge.

Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, a member of the bench, expressed the fear of exploitation if such permission was granted by allowing everyone to challenge judgements. It could encourage misuse by dragging people in courts if they didn’t satisfy their demands, Justice Khosa said, observing that courts should always be careful in opening the doors.

The chief justice observed that such permission would encourage certain NGOs or civil society organisations to exploit a situation by holding placards on roads to demand redressal of their grievance against certain individuals.

“Locus standi (right to appeal) means legs to stand or a right to knock the doors of the court,” the chief justice said, adding that only an aggrieved party should be allowed to challenge such decisions.

The apex court had taken up the joint appeal moved by 10 civil society activists, including Jibran Nasir, Jamshed Raza Mahmood and Afiya Shehrbano Zia, arguing that the high court had erroneously held that the murder case did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

The chief justice wondered whether the instant petition could be treated under Article 184(3) of the Constitution dealing with enforcement of the fundamental rights.

Justice Khosa said suo motu notices were always invoked under Article 184(3).

In December 2012, main accused Shahrukh Jatoi had managed to flee the country after committing the murder, but was brought back on a court order. He and other accused were sentenced to death by an anti-terrorism court. Subsequently, the convicts filed an appeal in the SHC which annulled antiterrorism clauses in the case and referred it to a sessions court. Later the district and sessions court ordered the release of Shahrukh Jatoi and the other accused after Shahzeb’s father Aurangzeb Khan submitted to the court an affidavit requesting approval of Jatoi’s bail and pardoning his son’s killer in the name of Allah and dropped the case. The court ordered the release of the convicts against a surety of Rs500,000 each when it was told that both sides had reconciled and the testimony was recorded with mutual consent.

When the matter was taken by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Advocate Siddiqi argued that the petitioners were an interested party for the reasons that eight of the 10 petitioners were residents of the Defence area where the incident took place. He said the gruesome murder resulted in spreading terror that instilled fear, helplessness and insecurity among the residents. Such a murder was an act of terrorism as it also affected the public at large, he said.

The counsel argued that the state completely abdicated its responsibility of safeguarding its citizens and that there were errors in the high court judgement. He alleged that there was collusion between the state and the accused as the prosecutor had been changed four times during the trial.

Published in Dawn, February 1st, 2018