ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench accepted for consideration a plea on Tuesday from PTI founder Imran Khan, asking for the creation of a judicial panel to look into claims of “state suppression” against party officials and members following the May 9 unrest.
The bench did not provide a deadline for resolving the dispute before it, even though it dismissed the registrar office’s concerns.
In the appeal, the PTI founder called for a judicial committee to investigate claims of political and non-political meddling in state authorities’ operations, as well as constitutional oath violations by the officials, and to find individuals accountable.
The appeal, which was submitted by PTI Secretary General Salman Akram Raja, sought the supreme court to make an order guaranteeing the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights, including as the freedom of expression, movement, information, assembly, life, and fair legal redress.
In order to undermine the rule of law and constitutional governance, it emphasized the purportedly disproportionate use of the law to suppress dissent, obstruct political participation, and destroy public confidence in democratic institutions.
AAG inquired as to whether the government plans to prosecute Imran for contempt.
Senior counsel Hamid Khan stated that the nation was experiencing “undeclared martial law” when the bench took up the issue of the registrar’s objections.
The attorney was making a broad remark, but the civil administration can ask the army for help under Article 245; Justice Jamal Mandokhail stepped in to remind him of this. Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that the petitioner had to contest the constitutional authority’s authority under Article 245 and explained how the petitioner may claim that martial law had not been declared.
Chaudhry Aamir Rehman, the Additional Attorney General (AAG), noted that the court had not yet decided how the petition was in the public interest.
Justice Aminuddin Khan clarified that the court was considering arguments on the registrar’s office’s objections rather than the case’s merits.
Proceedings for contempt
In addition, the constitutional panel recommended that the AAG seek new guidance from the government regarding its plan to pursue the 2022 contempt plea, emphasizing that charges would only be brought against the PTI founder in court.
When the AAG asserted that the government intended to take the case seriously, the constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, ordered that new instructions be sought.
The federal government filed a petition against Mr. Khan, alleging that he disregarded the court’s May 25, 2022, order prohibiting the PTI from holding a rally close to the H-9 and G-9 sectors, even though the party’s top leadership and their legal representatives made clear that the event would not cause any inconvenience to the general public.
The interior ministry expressed sorrow in its plea that, in spite of assurances, PTI’s top leadership encouraged supporters to go to D-Chowk by flagrantly disobeying court orders and making false claims that the court had approved the march without any restrictions.
The reports provided by the interior ministry, the chief commissioner of Islamabad, the chief of police, the ISI, and the IB DGs were emphasized in the contempt plea, which claimed that the PTI leadership was determined to follow Mr. Khan’s instructions to D-Chowk in violation of the court ruling.
In order to protect fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution, the government had urged the Supreme Court to also issue comprehensive guidelines for all future protests to be held in the federal capital. These guidelines should include prior notification of the date, venue selection, assurance that the protests will not interfere with public life, and a commitment to ensure that protesters do not cause any damage to private or public property.
A five-judge panel led by then-CJP Umar Ata Bandial had previously considered the government’s request. In his supplementary note, Justice Yahya Afridi noted that Mr. Khan had allegedly disregarded the court’s orders from May 25 and that, as a result, contempt proceedings ought to be started for the alleged disobedience rather than requesting reports from the state agencies.
When the case was heard on Tuesday, Justice Mandokhail emphasized both the court and the contemnor were involved in the contempt issue. He also questioned why the government was becoming so upset about the issue while referring to the AAG. Justice Mandokhail said the court is offering the government a solution.
Salman Akram Raja, speaking on behalf of Imran Khan, clarified that the court’s verbal order had not reached Mr. Khan because his attorneys were unable to notify him of it since mobile phone service had been suspended.
However, the court ordered the government to provide new instructions and put a temporary halt to further proceedings.
Military trial
The AAG requested a postponement because Khawaja Haris Ahmed, the senior lawyer for the defense ministry, was not available, and the constitutional bench postponed until December 12 the intra-court appeal against the October 23, 2023, judgment nullifying civilians’ trial by military courts.
Sardar Latif Khosa’s request to move all of the individuals detained in relation to the May 9 events to regular jails was denied by the court.
