ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday regretted the state’s perceived insensitivity in conducting proper investigations, observing that it seemed more focused on toppling elected governments and installing new ones in their place.

“The state is focused on toppling and installing governments with all institutions targeting poli­tical opponents,” regretted Justice Athar Minallah, member of the three-judge bench that had taken up a pre-arrest bail plea of Ishaq Khosa, a fugitive involved in a 2011 double murder in Dera Ghazi Khan.

The bench, headed by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and also including Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmed Khan, directed the police superintendent serving at the apex court to arrest Ishaq and hand him over to jail authorities after his bail plea was rejected.

The court, however, reserved its decision in the case and sought a report.

Two accused, Muhammad Yaqub and Ishaq Khosa, were sentenced to life imprisonment by the Lahore High Court for the 2011 murders of Irshad Ahmed and Siraj Ahmed in Dera Ghazi Khan.

While Muhammad Yaqub remains in prison, Ishaq Khosa “escaped” after being granted bail by the high court.

During the hearing, Justice Minallah regretted that the truth was acknowledged in the Supreme Court as much as it was in society, adding that the murder of an elected prime minister was admitted in court after 40 years.

“What can be a greater crime than killing the prime minister?” he wondered, adding that someone should had been held responsible and punished for the murder.

The court also raised questions about the faulty investigations, with Jus­tice Minallah wondering whether the state ever has any intention to serve the common man.

He added that investigative agencies follow people year-round but show no concern for ordinary citizens.

Justice Mandokhail regretted that witnesses always take an oath to face the wrath of God if they lie, yet 100 out of 200 witnesses end up lying before the court of law.

He noted that since 2017, such murder cases have been pending in the Supreme Court, while the state remains focused on installing new governments by toppling elected ones.

Justice Minallah regretted that all institutions seem to be working against political opponents.

Regarding state inaction, Justice Mandokhail said when three prime ministers of the country were assassinated, nobody knows what happened to their cases.

Justice Mandokhail regretted that even the senior-most judge of the Balochistan High Court was killed, but no progress was made in the case.

He said that while he did not want to sound as though he was speaking of provincialism, the investigations in Sindh and Punjab were far poorer compared to the other two provinces, with such investigations always leading to dead ends.

He observed that people have lost faith in the country’s institutions because the latter failed to function effectively and, as a result, people have turned to the Supreme Court.

Usman Khosa, the counsel for the petitioner, regretted that the institutions had disappointed the people, which is why everyone now looks towards the court.

Justice Athar Minallah observed that when state institutions are engaged in political engineering, such a situation is inevitable.

More challenges to 26th Amendment

Separately, two more petitions were filed in the Supreme Court on Friday challenging the 26th Constitutional Amend­ment.

One of the petitions was moved by Maria Ahmad, a lawyer from Karachi, through counsel Salman Talibuddin.

It argued that the package undermines equality and inclusivity by introducing a rotating seat for either a woman or a non-Muslim on the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) for appointing judges.

It added that idea of rotation arrangement could reduce these groups to tokenistic representation, violating the Constitution’s guarantees of equality, non-discrimination, and inclusion.

The petition challenged Article 175A(2)(viii), which introduces the rotating seat on the JCP.

Filed under Article 184(3), the petition highlighted the systemic inequities caused by temporary and interchangeable representation.

The petition stressed that women and non-Muslims have historically been excluded from leadership roles in Pakistan’s judiciary, a pattern inconsistent with Articles 25, 27, and 34 of the Constitution, which mandate equality, affirmative action, and full participation in national life.

By treating their representation as interchangeable, the provision entrenches structural biases rather than addressing them, it added.

The petition also referenced Pakistan’s commitments to international human rights instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which obligate the state to ensure full and equitable participation of the marginalised groups in governance.

Meanwhile, in a separate petition before the Supreme Court, eight former presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) — Abid Hassan Minto, Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Hamid Khan, Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Muneer A. Malik, Abid Zuberi, Ali Ahmed Kurd and Aman-Ullah-Kinrani — argued that the 26th Amendment seeks to politicise the judiciary by altering the judicial appointment process.

They contended that the amendment infringes upon the judiciary’s power to form benches in the superior courts, creates self-serving politically dominated constitutional benches, and undermines the principle of seniority.

“This threatens public trust and confidence in access to an independent and impartial judiciary and the rule of law,” the petition feared.

It pleaded that the present application be allowed and be placed before a full court bench of the Supreme Court for adjudication and announcement of an authoritative pronouncement to decide the issue for once and for all in the interest of justice.

Published in Dawn, December 21st, 2024