TLDR:
- Supreme Court accepts judicial inquiry plea.
- Army Act trials under constitutional scrutiny.
- Court raises concerns over martial law claims.
ISLAMABAD (The Thursday Times) — The Supreme Court of Pakistan has agreed to hear Imran Khan’s petition seeking a judicial inquiry into the controversial events of May 9 and 10. The petition challenges the trials of civilians under the Army Act and questions their constitutional validity.
Court clears initial objections
The constitutional bench overturned the registrar’s objections to Imran Khan’s plea, allowing the case to move forward. The court highlighted procedural gaps but clarified that it had yet to consider the merit of the petition. This decision marks the beginning of legal scrutiny over an issue that has divided political and legal experts.
Claims of undeclared martial law
Imran Khan’s legal team argued that the events of May 9 reflect the implementation of undeclared martial law, alleging excessive military involvement in civilian matters. The court countered these claims, reminding the petitioner that military deployment under Article 245 is constitutionally mandated and that its invocation does not constitute martial law.
Judicial commission’s role in investigations
While the petition calls for the formation of a judicial commission, the court made it clear that such a commission would only assign responsibility and would not interfere with ongoing criminal cases. This distinction underscores the separation of judicial and investigative powers.
Arguments over article 245
The bench questioned the legal grounds for labelling Article 245 as unconstitutional. The petitioner was asked to explain how this constitutional provision could be misused and whether such claims held merit. The court emphasised the need for a clear argument before proceeding further.
Unresolved concerns delay proceedings
The Additional Attorney General raised concerns about the petition’s relevance to public interest, an issue yet to be debated. The bench noted the importance of addressing these concerns and adjourned the case indefinitely, leaving both legal teams with much to clarify in future hearings.