The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition seeking the postponement of hearings into intra-court appeals against a ruling that had rendered as unconstitutional trials of civilians in military courts.
Taking up several petitions pertaining to the trials of civilians in military courts, aseven-member constitutional bench led by Justice Aminud Din Khan dismissed a plea submitted by the counsel of former Chief Justice of Pakistan Jawwad S. Khawaja for a suspension of the hearings. Lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan argued the matter should be deferred until the legitimacy of the 26th Constitutional Amendment was decided.
In addition to dismissing the plea, the court imposed a fine of Rs. 20,000 on the former chief justice for repeatedly wasting the court’s time by seeking adjournments.
During the hearing, the court asked Ahsan if he recognized the authority of the constitutional bench. “I do not accept the jurisdiction of the constitutional bench,” he said, prompting Justice Jamal Mandokhail to observe that he should then leave the courtroom. Continuing his arguments, the counsel said the Judicial Commission of Pakistan formed the constitutional bench, adding the forum’s operations were determined by the contested amendment. To this, Justice Mandokhail asked if the 26th constitutional amendment had been revoked.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, similarly, criticized the lawyer for “delaying” tactics. “At every hearing, there seems to be a new request,” he observed, adding that even if the 26th Amendment were revoked, any judicial decisions during this period would remain protected. He questioned if actual victims of military trials supported any further delays.
The bench then called Hafeezullah Niazi, the father of accused Hassan Niazi, to the rostrum. Justice Mandokhail asked Niazi if he wished to proceed with the case, to which he replied in the positive.
Turning back to Khawaja’s lawyer, Justice Musarrat Hilali observed that his client lacked the legal standing to pursue the case. “You are delaying proceedings because no loved one of yours is in custody,” remarked Justice Mandokhail, adding all cases before the Supreme Court were currently in accordance with the 26th Amendment. “All benches are being formed under the new amendment, and even the case concerning the amendment will be heard by a bench constituted under it,” he added.
During the proceedings, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf leader Salman Akram Raja said he objected to certain parts of the judgment authored by Justice Munib Akhtar, adding he would present arguments on the matter.
Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi then inquired into how the trials of the accused in the Army Public School attack were conducted. Defense Ministry counsel Khawaja Haris explained that those trials were conducted in accordance with the 21st Constitutional Amendment, which had allowed trials of civilians in military courts.
The court then dismissed Hafeezullah Niazi’s request to transfer the accused to civilian jails.
It also dismissed a plea of the additional attorney general seeking permission for military courts to announced verdicts of completed trials. Justice Musarrat Hilali observed that doing so would effectively recognize the authority of military courts, rendering the issue of jurisdiction null and void.