ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench on Tuesday fixed the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan’s plea to form a judicial commission to probe the May 9, 2023, events.
A seven-member constitutional bench, presided over by Justice Aminuddin Khan, conducted a hearing of the case and fixed the case for hearing, removing the reservations of the Registrar’s Office.
Other members of the bench included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.
Khan’s lawyer Hamid Khan appeared before the constitutional bench and urged the court to investigate the events of May 9, saying that more than a year and a half had passed without clarity on what transpired that day.
“Hundreds of cases were registered after May 9, claiming that an entire political party was being marginalised,” Hamid Khan noted.
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.
Petitioner’s lawyer argued that the country was under undeclared Martial Law as no one dared to probe what happened on May 9, adding that the army was called every time to normalise the situation.
“You are giving a sweeping statement about Martial Law while Justice Mazhar added that the petitioner should also challenge Article 245 of the constitution under which the army is called,” Justice Mandokhail remarked.
Contempt case against Imran Khan
In a separate case, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Amir Rehman has informed the Supreme Court that the government is serious about pursuing the contempt case against former premier Imran Khan.
During the hearing conducted by the constitutional bench, AAG argued that the PTI founder violated a court order during the long march on May 25, 2022.
During the hearing, Justice Aminuddin questioned whether the government genuinely intended to pursue the petition. The AAG responded affirmatively, saying that the government sought a serious hearing on the matter.
Justice Aminuddin noted that if the court had issued a notice, the PTI founder would have to appear in person before the court while directing the additional attorney general to look into the modalities for presenting the jailed former prime minister in court.
Justice Mandokhail emphasised that contempt cases are strictly between the court and the accused, urging the parties not to become emotional as the court was offering a clear path forward.
Khan’s counsel Salman Akram Raja informed the court that his client had already submitted a response. He contended that the court’s verbal order had not reached the PTI founder, partly due to the disruption of mobile services, which had hindered communication between the legal team and their client.
