ISLAMABAD: The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday admitted for hearing a plea moved by PTI founder Imran Khan seeking the formation of a judicial commission to probe alleged ‘state suppression’ against party workers and leaders in the wake of May 9 violence.

While the bench removed the objections raised by the registrar office, it did not give any date for fixing the case before it.

In the petition, the PTI founder demanded that a judicial commission look into alleged political and non-political interference in the functioning of the state authorities and violation of their constitutional oaths by the functionaries and identify those responsible for it.

Filed by PTI Secretary General Salman Akram Raja, the petition asked the apex court to issue order to ensure the protection of fundamental rights of citizens, including the right to life, freedom of assembly, expression, movement, information and fair judicial redress.

It highlighted alleged disproportionate application of laws to stifle dissent, impede political participation, and erode public trust in democratic institutions, thereby undermining the rule of law and constitutional governance.

AAG asked to confirm if govt intends to pursue contempt case against Imran

When the matter of registrar’s obj­e­c­tions was taken up by the bench, senior counsel Hamid Khan remarked that the country was witnessing an ‘undeclared martial law’.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail intervened to remind the counsel that he was making a sweeping statement though the civil government can seek assistance of the army under Article 245. Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar observed the petitioner had to challenge the vires of the constitutional authority under Article 245, adding how the petitioner could call it an undeclared martial law.

At this, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Chaudhry Aamir Rehman pointed out that the court had yet to determine the question as to how the petition was in public interest.

Justice Aminuddin Khan explained that the court was not hearing arguments on the merit of the case but on the objections raised by the registrar’s office.

Contempt proceedings

Separately, the constitutional bench suggested that the AAG may take fresh instruction from the government about its intention to pursue the 2022 contempt plea, pointing out that charges would be framed only in presence of the PTI founder in the court.

Headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, the constitutional bench issued directions to seek fresh instructions when the AAG claimed the government intended to pursue the matter seriously.

The court had taken up the federal government’s petition against Mr Khan for allegedly flouting the court’s May 25, 2022 order of restraining PTI from holding rally near H-9 and G-9 sectors despite categorical assurances on behalf of party’s top leadership and their counsel that the gathering would not cause any inconvenience to the public at large.

In its petition, the interior ministry regretted that despite assurances, PTI’s top leadership, by acting in blatant disregard to the court directions, exhorted supporters to reach D-Chowk, falsely professing as if the court had allowed the march without any conditions.

The contempt plea highlighted the reports furnished by the interior ministry, Islamabad chief commissioner, police chief, ISI and IB DGs stating that PTI leadership was bent upon reaching D-Chowk on Mr Khan’s directions despite court order.

The government had urged the Supreme Court to also issue a comprehensive guideline for all future protests to be held in the federal capital that should also include providing prior intimation of the date, selection of the venue, assurance of not causing any hindrance to the public life and a commitment to ensure that protesters do not cause any damage to public or private property in order to safeguard fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution.

Previously, a five-judge bench headed by then CJP Umar Ata Bandial had taken up the government’s request and in his additional note, Justice Yahya Afridi had observed that Mr Khan, prima facie disobeyed May 25 court directions, therefore for the alleged disobedience, contempt proceedings should be initiated instead of calling reports from the state agencies.

On Tuesday, when the case was taken up, Justice Mandokhail highlighted that the matter of contempt was between the court and the contemnor and while pointing towards AAG, Justice Mandokhail wondered why the government was getting emotional in this matter. The court is suggesting a way out to the government, Justice Mandokhail remarked.

Meanwhile, Salman Akram Raja, representing Imran Khan, explained that the verbal order of the court had not reached Mr Khan as his lawyers could not inform him about it due to the suspension of mobile phone services.

The court, however, postponed further proceedings for an indefinite period, with directions to take fresh instructions from the government.

Military trial

The constitutional bench adjourned until Dec 12 the intra-court appeal against the Oct 23, 2023, order nullifying civilians’ trial by military courts when the AAG request­­ed for postponement as senior counsel for defence ministry Khawaja Haris Ahmed was indisposed.

The court rejected Sardar Latif Khosa’s plea to transfer all the suspects arrested in connection with the May 9 incidents to normal prisons.

Published in Dawn, December 11th, 2024